Ah, I stand corrected then. Sounds like both a fascinating question and a difficult problem.
At the risk of pointing in yet another bad direction, it seems to me that a cognate to this problem could be the Rosenthal's "file drawer" issue in research; i.e. the work that goes unsubmitted out of a (correct or incorrect) assumption that it won't get a fair hearing because it runs counter to other, published literature. Though the idea is from '79, it's still of great concern. I once had a long discussion with an official from NIH who was seeking funding for research into the publication bias issue (see also the area worked on by Ioannidas -- http://xrl.in/1h2j, which I offer here not as endorsement or condemnation, but simply as an example). And, as remote from my real knowledge as anything could be, as a mildly interested observer it seems that there might be something of this question of inertia in dominant ideas that appears in theoretical physics hiring. Again, I warn that this is from a simplistic reading of Lee Smolin's discussion of the issue, and absolutely no personal experience. Simply things that occured to me in reading your note. Best, -Ian On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:37 PM, glen e. p. ropella < [email protected]> wrote: > Thus spake Ian P. Cook circa 26/01/09 08:50 AM: > > If the interest is in the back-and-forth over the Hockey Stick, I don't > > think you can go too wrong with the Wikipedia entry: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy > > > > It discusses the issue, and links to the various reports from the > National > > Research Council, the Wegman report, the American Stat. Assoc. session, > the > > 2008 Mann study, etc... > > Thanks. I'm not concerned about the controversy so much. I am more > concerned about the accusation that peer-review is (can be) a tool to > suppress ideas that run counter to the consensus. I recently finished > Thomas Gold's "Deep Hot Biosphere" and I hearken back to a story by > Sydney Brenner regarding his c. elegans project; these stories argue (to > a small extent) how dominant consensus can toss extraordinarily high > hurdles in front of hypotheses that go against that consensus. And, > being an ABMer, I've personally experienced what I've thought of as > psychological/methodological inertia amongst traditional biological > modelers. (Though every _constructive_ criticism they send my way turns > out to be entirely valid and helps improve my rhetoric.) > > So, I have some sympathy with my friend's complaints about a premature > consensus with regard to global climate change. > > But, overall, I tend to think that the people whining about suppression > are just lazy and unwilling to do the work necessary to convince others > or specifically and concretely lay out their positions. Or, perhaps > over time, they build up a persecution complex (e.g. Robert Rosen) and > become comfortable as a "victim". > > .... Anyway, what I'm interested in is the extent to which the global > climate change arguments (on both sides) have representation in high > impact journals with strong peer review. I'm sure there are > sociologists examining such processes. If I knew what to ask for, I'd > be asking for that research instead. [grin] > > Chip: Thanks for the specific paper links. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > -- ___________________________________ Ian P. Cook m: 412.759.8973 jabber: [email protected] Y!/MSN: ian_palmer_cook AIM: ianpalmercook ___________________________________
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
