por davidgp el 17/10/2007

Well, that’s the theory, anyway. In practice, the process is occasinally noisy and unpleasant. Heated arguments can take place at scientific conferences. Reviewers are sometimes accused of obstructing the publication of results that contradict their own work, and editors are accused of bias. Rivalries develop that are as strong as anything that takes place on the playing field. Foolish work may find its way into print, while a spectacular insight becomes mired in some petty dispute. And yet, overall, the system works amazingly well: good work eventually rises to the top, while the clutter of shoddy science remains manageable.

Y otra cita más del mismo libro

In 1911, the U.S. patent commissioner, annoyed that so much Patient Office time was being spent on impossible ideas, ruled that a patent application for a perpetual motion machine could not be submitted until one year after an actual operating model of the machine was filed with the Patent Office. If the machine was still running at the end of the year, the application would be accepted. None of the devices turned out to be quite that perpetual, and the new ruling seemed to bring an end to patent applications for perpetual motion machines.

Voodoo Science por Robert L. Park

Leave a Comment

Entrada anterior:

Entrada siguiente