博文
[转载]科学不仅仅属于主流科学家，科学的多样性应该包容非主流的民科
|||
1 读书笔记
科学不仅仅属于主流科学家，科学的多样性应该包容民科
Science should save all, not just some | Science
Science
8 Aug 2024
Vol 385, Issue 6709
p. 581
相关阅读
How scientists are confronting the lingering imprint of colonialism
How scientists are confronting the lingering imprint of colonialism
Discussions around global equity and justice in science
typically emphasize the lack of diversity in the editorial boards of scientific journals,
inequities in authorship, “parachute research,” dominance of the English language,
or scientific awards garnered predominantly by Global North scientists.
科学的不平等和科学的非正义性体现在
学术期刊的话语权掌握在少数科学主流权威的手里，非主流科学家没有发言权；
发表论文的科学家是主流科学家，非主流科学家很难发表自己的观点；
主流特权阶层打压了民间科学家的研究；
在全球多种语言中，唯独英语独秀；
几乎所有科学奖项都在北半球。
These inequities are pervasive and must be redressed. But there is a bigger problem.
The legacy of colonialism in scientific research includes an intellectual property system
that favors Global North countries and the big corporations they support.
This unfairness shows up in who gets access to the fruits of science
and raises the question of who science is designed to serve or save.
这些不平等普遍存在,必需纠正。
更大的问题是： 主流科学家的科学殖民包括北半球国家的学术体系以及他们所从事的研究；
这些不公平导致主流科学家独享发表和获得基金支持的特权。
问题是：
科学应该支持谁，
科学更应该惩救发表不出来的颠覆性创新。
...
These examples reflect the importance of not only thinking about
who does science and how, but also whether all people have a right to the fruits of science.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) stipulates
that “everyone has the right…to share in scientific advancements and its benefits.”
This declaration must be reaffirmed by all scientists and countries
because lives depend on it. For this right to be realized,
science must no longer be an enterprise that privileges profits and the elite.
Communities most affected by problems must help drive the agenda on
what science gets conducted, by whom, how, and who benefits the most from it.
不仅谁在做科学、如何做科学是重要的，
是不是所有人包括非主流科学家在内的人都能享受到基金资助、论文发表的福利更是重要。
联合国全球人权宣言（1948）规定："人人有权...... 分享科学福利和促进进步”。
所有国家和科学家都需要践行这个规定。
要实现这个权力，科学不能只为主流科学家这一部分人服务。
科学界是这个问题的重灾区，因此科学界必须做点什么，以保证怎样做科学、谁来做、怎么做、
谁才应该是最大的受益者。
Those who have been historically marginalized, including Black and Indigenous people,
people of color, and people in the Global South, must refuse to be seen
as passive recipients of charitable and trickle-down science, and demand equitable partnerships.
被边缘化非主流科学家（民科）不能被动接受主流科学家的压制，
非主流科学家（民科）有权要求加入科学研究的共同进程之中
Fortunately, self-determination and self-sufficiency in advancing science
by Global South nations are emerging.
幸运的是颠覆主流理论的工作从来没有因为被压制而停止过 ...
Scientists must collectively advocate for reforms to how science is funded,
who is funded, how governments define intellectual property regimes,
and how scientists are incentivized.
And scientists everywhere must be trained to see equity, access,
and justice as key values in their work. This is starting to happen in global health
and medical research, but must become universal.
科学家必须共同促使科学资助方式的改革、谁被资助、政府如何制定科学制度，
以及应该怎样激励科学家 ...
世界各地的科学家都必须有平等的意识，共同参与的要求、正义的意识等价值观。
这一点必须被广泛接受。
Threats to Science: Politicization, Misinformation, and Inequalities - James N. Druckman, 2022
2 科学界缺乏多样性所产生的问题是尖锐的批评不被允许
对于期刊发表的90%以上的错误文章，几乎看不到评论文章。
The science community has a serious problem of dislike questioning published error.
“The writing flow of the manuscript should be more polite and professional.” Cited from: https://doi.org/10.32388/5FRZHG
“Last month, I got a private Twitter message from a postdoc bruised by the clash between science as it is and how it should be. He had published a commentary in which he pointed out errors in a famous researcher’s paper. The critique was accurate, important and measured — a service to his field. But it caused him problems: his adviser told him that publishing the criticism had crossed a line, and he should never do it again.”
“Scientists are very quick to say that science is self-correcting, but those who do the work behind this correction often get accused of damaging their field, or worse. My impression is that many error detectors are early-career researchers who stumble on mistakes made by eminent scientists, and naively think that they are helping by pointing out those problems — but, after doing so, are treated badly by the community.”
“Stories of scientists showing unwarranted hostility to error detectors are all too common …”
“Researchers are often warned against pointing out errors — and sometimes kindness is used as justification. They are told to focus on improving their own research, or to state only the positive aspects of that done by others. If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”
“There are several problems with these arguments. First, we scientists present ourselves as a community of individuals committed to scrutinizing each other. Historian of science Naomi Oreskes, in urging non-scientists to trust science, argues that “scientists have a kind of culture of collective distrust”. We cannot tell people to trust us because we monitor each other, and then appeal to kindness to halt that scrutiny.”
Cited from: Vazire, S., 2020. A toast to the error detectors. Nature. 577, 9.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2
提出的问题越尖锐，意义越重大，越应该发表。但是指出的问题越尖锐越不容易发表
相当多的学术权威不是因为学术而权威，他们靠造假发表垃圾文章污染学术而成为学术权威
“对预印本文献的引用要慎重”是鼓励人们做伪科学，或者是做惯了伪科学的结果
教学名师不是优美的教态、不是工整的板书、不是美观教案，教学名师更是对教材逻辑内容的理解
在错误的语言体系中呆久了的主流科学家不能理解正确语言体系中的语言表达和逻辑思维
大多数主流科学家的同行评审学术不端是比“图片误用”更恶劣的学术不端
对于大多数主流权威犯的浅显而严重的错误视而不见是现代科学界的一个严重问题
在科学上，多数人的错误（无论是学术上的还是学术道德上的），能不能纠正
顶刊文章就是高水平文章，普通期刊的文章就是垃圾文章，简单而粗暴
很多时候研究热点就是大家都在为根本不存在的事情提供“存在”的实验证据
申请书天花乱坠，成果一地鸡毛, 科学研究不是深度挖掘根本不存在的关系
既然大多数人都不在乎真理，那追求真理到头，手握某些真理，又有什么意义呢？
如何看待《民科的背后:底层文化的哀嚎，肉食者你们听到了吗》一文的这些观点？
“为啥目前国内材料领域做微波吸收材料的论文，90%连基本概念都不懂，例输入阻抗和特征阻抗都不懂，还发了那么多文章？”
问题深重的期刊同行评审始终不能根除
一方面，颠覆错误的现行理论的文章很难发表，另一方面顶刊发表文章的（低级）错误从来不被发现
现代学界怎么了，为什么大家都热衷于切磋如何讨好审稿人，为什么不把力量用在做学问上
非常不专业的审稿意见：拒稿不是针对稿件的主要论证，而是根据前言背景拒稿
实践反复证明：期刊同行评审很难发现文章中的低级错误，但是能高效阻止新思想的传播
期刊同行评审:发现稿件错误很低效，不让颠覆性创新正确稿件发表效率很高
给不出学术理由，以“我不相信理论会随便的就出错”为依据拒稿是学术不端
对于颠覆主流科学家观点的稿件，无论怎么写，通常都不可能通过期刊同行评审
同行评审使专业阶层将信息把关过程变成了保护他们自身地位的保障
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1461774.html
上一篇：林子大了，什么鸟都有
下一篇：被大量实验文章实证的现行微波吸收理论错的如此彻底，其逻辑错误无法修复
