Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Skepticism is a lazy man's consolation, since it showed the ignorant to be as wise as the reputed
men of learning.
—Bertrand Russell,
A History of Western Philosophy
(1945)
Skepticism plays an essential role in the progress of science. Properly employed, it is a key self-
correcting mechanism that helps lead science inexorably, if erratically, toward a better understanding
of the natural world.
1
Yet, as the philosopher Bertrand Russell's statement above reveals, skepticism
in science can also be abused. His admonition has proven remarkably prophetic in the context of the
climate change denial movement, wherein the term
skeptic
has often been co-opted to describe those
who simply deny, rather than appraise critically.
Peer Review as Skepticism in Practice
Skepticism in the sense of critical consideration of evidence is intrinsic to the scientific enterprise. It
is inherent in the challenges scientists make of each other to back up claims with logical reasoning
and, where possible, hard data. The scientist must be willing to confront any holes in logic or flaws
in reasoning noted by fellow scientists and, ultimately, the results must be subject to independent
replication. This give-and-take occurs at scientific conferences, where scientists give presentations
and can question each other on the details. It is exercised more formally through so-called peer
review, a process that applies to articles describing original research, as well as to formal criticism
of previously published work. Editors of scientific journals send papers out for formal evaluation of
their intellectual merit by the authors' scientific peers—other scientists, typically anonymous—who
work in the same or a closely related area. Peer review is a kind of scientific “natural selection”;
papers that can withstand the scrutiny of this process will find their way to publication and are often
substantially stronger for it. Papers that cannot are rejected. Of course, the authors may have the
opportunity to resubmit after making further revisions, or they may try their luck submitting to another
journal.
Peer review does not necessarily determine whether the conclusions of a particular study are
correct; that may ultimately require further work that either confirms or refutes the conclusions.
Instead, the peer review process is designed to prevent the publication of papers so obviously flawed
as to be clearly invalid with regard to the claims made or conclusions drawn, and unlikely to add
usefully to the scientific discourse. This initial peer review process is hardly infallible, and in the
pages that follow I provide examples where it has failed to catch fatal flaws in papers. In some
subfields there are relatively few reviewers with the expertise necessary to evaluate a particular
