[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 138 KB, 407x559, GodfreyKneller-IsaacNewton-1689.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2109464 No.2109464 [Reply] [Original]

"We don't publish controversial scientific papers"

- Nature


LOOOOOOOOOOOL that statement goes against what everything science means.

note that they dont talk not about publishing lousy papers that dont follow the Scientific Method. but they publish only the ones that dont gave "controversial" results.

>> No.2109488

Source?

>> No.2109498

The two biggest taboos in science right now are:

- suggesting that there are systematic differences in average intelligence between races

- suggesting that religion is a natural phenomenon

Both of these taboos just serve to prop up the status quo. Science shouldn't care if it offends people.

>> No.2109512

>>2109498
I've also heard a lot about papers on pedophilia being repressed for being too controversial/giving the idea that pedophilia might be natural or not harmful.

Simple stuff like how children react to consensual sexual encounters with adults, possible traumas, etc. Because it has been suggested pedophilia isn't necessarily very harmful, people immediatly assume that scientists are trying to define moral grounds.

>> No.2109513

>>2109498
Science doesn't care. Scientists, however, get paid from a source that might stop their funding if they get too offensive.

>> No.2109531

>>2109498

>suggesting that there are systematic differences in average intelligence between races

This one pisses me off. Evidence does indeed point to blacks having lower average IQs than whites, and whites having lower average IQs than east Asians.

But... who cares? They're AVERAGE IQs. They don't justify racism. I'm white, and when I see a black guy, I know that he still may very well be smarter than me. It's just slightly less likely.

>> No.2109536

>>2109464
>"We don't publish controversial scientific papers"
Since when?
Also >>2109488

>> No.2109534

>>2109513

Go back to /new/, retard.

>> No.2109535

>>2109488
it happen in a letter sent from nature to my lab.

they sent us some sort of template that just fill the name of our lab with it.. i dont have the mail in this computer. but that policy is well known around scientists

>> No.2109539

>>2109534
Never even been there.

>> No.2109541

>>2109531

No one here is suggesting that it should "justify racism"

>> No.2109542
File: 119 KB, 480x350, 1275778770949.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2109542

>>2109498
But it's not taboo for Stormfags, who'd hijack a Nature thread (natural sciences journal) to preach the truth.

>> No.2109543

im not talking about religion or race. im talking about controversy in general.

please stick with this issue

>> No.2109547

>>2109535
Are you sure that's not a euphemism for "We think your work is wrong"?

>> No.2109551

>>2109541
>No one here is suggesting that it should "justify racism"

I know. But that is the unspoken reason why it's taboo. After all, there is a long history of racism based on bad science. Racism based on good science might be even worse.

>> No.2109562

I dunno who said it, but one on my favourite quotes is

"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."