The IPA team interview Peter Ridd. He explains that what’s happening on the Great Barrier Reef with coral bleaching is a normal cycle. He tells his story of being censured at James Cook university, but admits the state of free speech at universities in Australia is non-existent — even after his win. They discuss how we might reform science with audits (universities are almost a lost cause). We’ll probably never know how many scientists think similar thoughts to Peter Ridd. We know that they’ll need a $250,000 legal fund if they do.
Liberty Quote
From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production.
— Ayn RandRecent Comments
- dover_beach on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Sydney Boy on Ridd on the reef and free speech
- Nighthawk the Elder on We are all Israel Folau
- pete m on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Infidel Tiger on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Some History on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- cohenite on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Vicki on We are all Israel Folau
- egg_ on We are all Israel Folau
- DaveR on We are all Israel Folau
- pete m on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Socrates at the Pub on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Tintarella di Luna on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Mark A on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Infidel Tiger on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- cohenite on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- stackja on We are all Israel Folau
- Andreas on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- MatrixTransform on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Socrates at the Pub on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Mother Lode on We are all Israel Folau
- cohenite on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Tom on We are all Israel Folau
- Johno on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- mh on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Alan on We are all Israel Folau
- Socrates at the Pub on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Infidel Tiger on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- Socrates at the Pub on We are all Israel Folau
- Roger on Open Forum: June 22, 2019
-
Recent Posts
- We are all Israel Folau
- The sustainability of renewable energy and the five Es
- Later than you think. Creating the news at the New York Times
- Ridd on the reef and free speech
- Heads up Doomlord!
- Windwatch 22 June. The drought continues…
- Lose your wallet in Switzerland, Norway or the Netherlands if you must. With money inside
- Jupes on Veteran suicides: Poor service delivery or poor training?
- “Libra must be stopped”
- The latest Irish joke. Ban private cars and import a million third-world refugees
- Open Forum: June 22, 2019
- What wind? Again. The birds strike back and New York goes all in for unreliable energy
- A Libra conversation: Cowen and Catalini
- International Price Fixing Cartel
- Labor’s response to Setka follows same old union script
- Facebook’s great monetary revolution
- The three E or triple E test for sustainable energy policy
- The Irish National Broadcasting Code
- Don Aitkin on thinking about things
- Angus Taylor and a third of our electricity from RE by 2021
- Howz that education “investment” going
- Moral Hazard: Finance Sector Banks Reputation Renewal on Indigenous Rights
- Currency Lad: The Unteachables
- Trouble in the socialist paradise. What is happening in Sweden
- Windwatch 19 June
- Words
- There is a recession coming. Increase taxes
- Turning business in to the public service
- Green with equality
- Please Prime Minister no more Mr Niceguy
Archives
Pages
Blogroll
- 38 South
- ABC The Drum
- AEI Ideas
- Alex
- All about Finance
- all right, all right
- Andrew Bolt
- Andrew McIntyre
- Andrew Norton – New
- Andrew Norton – Old
- Arnold Kling
- Aussie Macro Moments
- Becker – Posner
- Bet Metrix
- Bill Mitchell – billy blog
- Bob McGee
- Cafe Hayek
- Calculated Risk
- Captain Capitalism
- Carpe Diem (New)
- Carpe Diem (Old)
- Causes of the crisis
- Chalk Bunny
- Charles Richardson
- Chicago University – Pro Market
- Chris Kenny
- Chris Snowdon
- Club Troppo
- Confessions of a College Professor
- Consumer Choice Center
- Continental Telegraph
- Conversable Economist
- Coordination Problem
- Core Economics
- Crapulous Coercion
- Cryptoeconomics
- Daniel Greenfield
- David Boaz
- Dick Puddlecote
- Dover_Beach
- Econ Journal Watch
- EconAcademics
- Econbrowser
- EconLog
- Econofact
- Econometrics Beat
- Economic Education Initiative
- Essential Hayek
- Fama/French
- Fault Lines
- Fear the boom and bust
- Fiscal Times
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Free Banking
- Freedom and Prosperity Academy
- Freedom Watch
- Greg Mankiw
- Guido Fawkes
- Harry Clarke
- Harry Clarke (Temporary)
- Hayek Project
- Head Rambles
- Hey … What did I miss?
- Homer Paxton
- How does your MP vote
- [email protected] Centre
- inCISe
- Institutional Economics
- International Liberty
- Islam and Liberty Network
- Jim Rose
- John Cochrane
- John Humphreys
- John Lott
- John Quiggin
- John Taylor
- Journal of Economic Perspectives
- Julie Borowski
- Keith Hennessey
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty Law Blog
- Liberty Works
- Loaded Dogma
- Macrobusiness
- Mannkal Foundation
- Marginal Revolution
- Mark the Ballot
- Mark the Graph
- markedlymacrotoo
- Market Urbanism
- Master Resource
- Matt Ridley
- Menzies House
- Michael Oakeshott Association
- Michael Smith
- Mikayla Novak
- Minding the Campus
- Miranda Devine
- Money Illusion
- Muck and Mystery
- MyGovCost
- Natural Order – Christopher Lingle
- New Economist
- Niche Modeling
- Nick Cater
- Notes on Liberty
- Offsetting Behaviour
- Oliver Hartwich
- On Line Opinion
- Open Capitalism
- Opinion Dominion
- Other Right
- Paul Johnson Archives
- PERColator
- Peter Martin
- Philippa Martyr
- Piled Higher and Deeper
- Pointman
- Political Calculations
- Potemkin's Village
- Poverty Cure
- Prick with a fork
- Principles of Forecasting
- Quadrant Online
- Queensland Economy Watch
- Quillette
- Raph Koster
- Retraction Watch
- Retronaut
- Rhino economics
- ricardian ambivalence
- Robert Murphy
- Roger Kerr (archive)
- Rosemary Fryth
- School Watch
- Sensible Social Policy
- Skepticlawyer
- Sound Money
- Spiked
- Sports Economist
- Statista
- Stephen Dawson
- Stephen Koukoulas
- Steve Schwartz
- Stimulus Watch
- Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax
- Streetwise Professor
- Stubborn Mule
- Taking Liberties (Simon Clark)
- Tax Check
- Tax Foundation
- Tax Rambling
- TaxProf
- The Baseline Scenario
- The Beacon
- The Black Steam Train
- The Marcus Review
- The Moronic Lodge
- The TaxPayers' Alliance
- The Visible Hand
- The Wentworth Report
- Think Markets
- Thomas the Think Engine
- Tim Blair
- Tim Worstall
- We are all dead
- William Briggs – Statistician
Meta
Free speech is expensive!
But fake news is free.
research at universities is not done for advancing science any longer, it is done to advance careers
look at how crowded with names all the papers are
what a rort .. a bit like arts funding it depends on your network to get ahead and access to OPM
**Peter Ridd calls it like it is on peer review as well, pretty well what you’d expect and certainly not rigorous. Good though if you have mates in the field who all want to advance.
It’s a circle of backscratchers harvesting government grants with one hand and looking after mates with the other.
billie , It has always been thus . No ? .
Israel Folau….Peter Ridd…….Free speach
Enyaw, it has got worse since the explosion of higher education and state-funded research and then it has been aggravated by politicization that has got worse in parallel with the expansion, then there is the synergistic effect of the two tendencies.
You would need to over 60 or even 65 to see the process from the inside. Otherwise you have to read about it. Jacques Barzun is my favorite commentator.He lived to 105 (1907 to 2012 and he kept publishing up to 2000) so he saw a lot:)
Cf. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Yes and the weird idea that Kuhn refuted Popper’s philosophy of science (the critical method). Popper was talking about the growth of knowledge, not the perpetuation of dogmas.
There is a Popper Derangement Syndrome that is prevalent in Australia, not so visible since people stopped learning about Popper at uni so he is not mentioned at all in polite society.
Yes and the weird idea that Kuhn refuted Popper’s philosophy of science (the critical method). Popper was talking about the growth of knowledge, not the perpetuation of dogmas.
I’ll grant that.
Just pointing out that scientific group think has been the norm, not the exception throughout history, and seems to be reaching a zenith with the AGW “consensus”.
Roger
#3050085, posted on June 23, 2019 at 11:51 am
Just pointing out that scientific group think has been the norm, not the exception throughout history, and seems to be reaching a zenith with the AGW “consensus”.
Didn’t the ancient Greeks get caught up with the idea of circles within circles within circles…..to explain the orbits of the planets?
No doubt there were some who thought otherwise, but “consensus”
Rafe, given the ‘success’ of ‘sue and settle’ and other ‘lawfare’ actions in the US, and the relative ease and rapidity of raising substantial amounts for legal costs these days via crowdfunding, maybe targeted legal action against offending individuals, organisations, universities, the CSIRO, the BOM, etc. is the best way to pursue this wave of abuse of science and free speech. While the case is sub judice, the msm will get less of a chance to slime the plaintiffs, and regardless of the result the defendants will be made very uncomfortable in the meantime. In fact the court experience could well lead to their behaviour improving, regardless of the result.
I would be very happy to contribute to any and all of these funding efforts – as I did for Peter Ridd. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of sceptics in Australia, I believe that a contribution of a few dollars to fund such cases would be seen by most as far more worthwhile (and potentially entertaining) than donating the same amount to, say, a political party that generally cannot be trusted to do what they promise!
Fat Tony
The Phlogiston Theory is a very good example of scientific groupthink!
Great to see the green left adopting the principles of the free market finally, where price is prohibition.
Peter Ridd is lucky he wasnt dissenting from the agenda in the middle ages ,burned at the stake they were ,everyone knew there were 25 angels dancing on the head of a pin ,not 24. Things have changed now with free speech as long as its the correct speech and doesnt stray from the agenda . Nothing like progressives for creating progress .
Peter Ridd was not censored by James Cook University.
Universities cannot censor anyone. Only the government can censor you.
Also, no one is forcing anyone to remain employed within an organization one disagrees with.
Science cannot be reformed with audits. The issues plaguing science are the same issues plaguing every other profession. People don’t know how to think in an integrated manner.
This is not going to be solved with any kind of legal action, it can only be solved by learning how to think.
In other words, you need the right ideas to counter the wrong ones, not just complain about the dominance of ideas you disagree with and then try to sue people over disagreements.
Still petering out.
As many Cats know, I am a serving Army officer. I had a few years out of Army where I worked in private industry ( I am an engineer) and lectured at an Australian university before joining up again. I still publish papers from time to time – a little more than one per year on average – and I do conduct peer reviews on other people’s work for scientific journals. So I am one of those “peers”. Most of the time, the author names are hidden to the reviewer and the reviewer names are hidden from the authors – hence it is double-blind.
Early this year I had a paper I agreed to review that was complete rubbish. The idea was good, and the research was OK, but the written work was rubbish – part of that was the poor English. It was obviously written by someone with English as a second language, and if I was to guess, I would say of Arabic or similar background. People with Asian languages as their first language tend to make different mistakes to those with an Arabic background. Typically, papers go through two rounds of review with a minimum of two reviews per round.
In the first round, I ended up writing 4 1/2 pages on how the paper needs to be improved and graded it “major revision necessary”. The other reviewer wrote a single paragraph and basically dismissed the paper. I was really surprised to get the paper back nearly three months later for a second round review. The authors had actually taken a lot of my criticisms and improved the paper substantially. So I ended up writing a second round review of less than a page and corrected the English for the authors – although most journals offer that service for an extra fee. The second reviewer (who was different to the other reviewer from the first round) provide a SINGLE LINE review – “Paper is good for publish”.
So is the peer review system broken? No, but the quality of the review varies and a better quality review can certainly make a paper better. I have always (mostly) been happy with the reviewers comments I receive and most of the time they have improved my papers.
Was ‘t The Australian University Research Council another of the sainted Bob Hawkes creations ? It seemed rid pardon the pun iculous at the time and seemed to this non academic just another facet of Hawke and Keating ‘ s slippery slope to socialism .Allow only prescribed research in certified areas.I asked my cousin how she would determine engineering research being a librarian.
Sydney Boy, the problem with peer review is that scientists are using it like a religious ritual to avoid the effort and responsible of thinking for themselves. It’s massively overused and so acts as a stagnating force in science.
Think about it. How is something new and original supposed to be proposed if it’s supposed to be peer reviewed before anyone will take it seriously? Something new and original, by definition, cannot be peer reviewed.
There was a famous case in Western Australia where two scientists discovered some stomach ulcers are caused by a bacteria and a treatment for it, only to be laughed at by everyone. They ended up having to infect themselves, treat themselves and document the process before becoming heroes.
This should never have happened, but such is the consequence of no one wanting to think for themselves until their peers tell them it’s OK.
So, I think peer review has a place to ensure basic standards are followed, but it cannot replace independent and competent thinking skills, which it seems to have done.
More petering out.
Also, no one is forcing anyone to remain employed within an organization one disagrees with.
Pardon me, wasn’t this the other way around?
Ie. he was forced out?
I disagree Peter. New stuff is published all the time. Unfortunately much of it is poorly peer reviewed and there are plenty (thousands) of shit scientific journals you wouldn’t wipe on. My major issue is when someone publishes a paper supporting the AGW theory and then all the Greenies jump up and down and claim excitedly “it’s peer reviewed!”. Number 1, there are peer reviews and there are PEER REVIEWS, as per my examples. And number 2, who reviews a paper on AGW? Obviously another AGW scientist. I mean, I don’t review papers on the economics of the cheese trade in Europe, do I?