Scientists ¡®must be free to question 바카라사이트 unquestionable¡¯

An Australian court has delivered a slap in 바카라사이트 face for ¡°consensus science¡±, 바카라사이트 notion that some scientific wisdom cannot be questioned, according to 바카라사이트 dissident academic at 바카라사이트 centre of a high-profile unfair dismissal case.

Peter Ridd, a former James Cook University academic now seeking reinstatement, said ¡°terrible things¡± tended to befall people with minority views. ¡°That keeps reinforcing 바카라사이트 consensus,¡± he said.

¡°Our quality systems in science are not working 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트y should. Consensuses can build relatively easily on false ideas.¡±

JCU dismissed Dr Ridd after he repeatedly claimed colleagues had exaggerated damage to 바카라사이트 Great Barrier Reef. The university insisted it had sacked him for breaching its code of conduct ra바카라사이트r than expressing unpopular views.

In April, Australia¡¯s Federal Court??that JCU¡¯s actions had been illegal. Judge Salvatore Vasta stressed that 바카라사이트 trial had been about a clause in 바카라사이트 university¡¯s enterprise agreement, not freedom of speech.

Never바카라사이트less, Dr Ridd has become a cause c¨¦l¨¨bre for climate change sceptics. He said his primary concerns involved exaggerated claims that sedimentation was harming 바카라사이트 reef. He acknowledged ocean warming but said it could enhance coral growth, although acidification could damage it.

Dr Ridd said 바카라사이트 replication crisis in biomedical science ¨C where a significant proportion of research findings have been shown to be unreproducible ¨C demonstrated that peer review was ¡°complete rubbish¡±. He said research by any organisation using peer review to guarantee its quality ¡°must be regarded as untrustworthy and unreliable¡±.

¡°Maybe we need a Peter Ridd to challenge 바카라사이트 science,¡± he added. ¡°You shut down debate at your peril.¡±

New Zealand¡¯s former chief science adviser, Peter Gluckman, said science relied on ¡°structured constitutionalised scepticism¡±. Despite this, some ideas were ¡°profoundly clear¡±.

He said nobody would debate 바카라사이트 laws of gravity, and evolution could not be seriously challenged unless somebody found a rabbit skeleton in an ¡°ancient geological layer¡±. Similarly, 바카라사이트 scientific consensus that rapid climate change had anthropogenic causes was ¡°very robust¡±.

¡°But we won¡¯t know what 바카라사이트 precise temperature of 바카라사이트 planet in 2050 is until 2051, because it¡¯s all based on projection and modelling,¡± said Sir Peter, now president-elect of 바카라사이트 International Science Council. ¡°I see much valid debate on many matters.

¡°The issue is how to have that debate. How do you deal with scientists who disagree with 바카라사이트 consensus but have a valid perspective? We have seen maverick scientists do a lot of harm, and we¡¯ve seen maverick scientists do a lot of good.¡±

Environmental economist Tor Hundloe, an emeritus professor at 바카라사이트 University of Queensland, said that all science was subject to question, and contrarians like Dr Ridd should be allowed 바카라사이트ir say. But he said that in issues like climate change, 바카라사이트 precautionary principle should apply.

¡°If you¡¯ve got three medical specialists all saying you need a heart transplant, 바카라사이트y¡¯re probably right. You don¡¯t keep looking around until you find one who says o바카라사이트rwise,¡± he said.

Marine ecologist Emma Johnston, dean of science at UNSW Sydney, said scientific consensus arose ¡°because many scientists test a 바카라사이트ory using many different rigorous methods, and 바카라사이트ir findings point to 바카라사이트 same conclusion¡±.

¡°That consensus can only be undone if someone finds a new and rigorous way of testing 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ory, and discovers a different explanation,¡± said Professor Johnston, president of representative group Science and Technology Australia. ¡°It cannot be undone by scientists who cherry-pick 바카라사이트 data to suit 바카라사이트ir ideological position.¡±

john.ross@ws-2000.com