Sceptic communities should question their own biases toward peer review
Scepticism has been associated with science from an early time. The noble phrase ‘nullius in verba’ (take nobody’s word for it) was selected as the motto of the Royal Society in the 17th century: cited as ‘an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority’. Those big issues may be a fundamental feature of humanity, as they don’t seem to have changed 360 years later. Scientists must still be driven to refute politicians and anyone who stands to gain from cherry-picking facts and applying logical fallacies. Its import was driven home to me when chatting about six years ago with the late Harry Kroto, who mysteriously claimed ‘“take no one’s word for it” is fundamental not only for science, but really for enlightenment’.
Thanks to technology and perhaps the open science movement, there’s now a subculture I’m going to call ‘science bros’. Driven by the desire to be always right and consisting mostly of non-scientists, their hobby is to seek out arguments and attempt to win with a haughty deference to peer review. If something’s peer reviewed, we are to understand, it attains a Biblical level of unchallengeable veracity. I point out the non-scientist aspect not because scientists aren’t similarly susceptible to seeking self-superiority, but rather that experience with science (hopefully) makes them aware of the flaws in the scientific method.
When a paper is published after peer review, we scientists hold some reasonable expectation that the work was performed as stated by the authors, and that the conclusions are accurate. The process is quite tight – I certainly hear more complaints about paper rejections than unwarranted acceptances! However, a panel of editors and reviewers may occasionally let a false positive pass.