It's a shame the incentives are all wrong for getting scientists to defend their work in unsympathetic forums. I work in the physics field and have authored/coauthored papers in scientific journals so I think I see how it works. The incentives are 1) to publish - papers are looked upon by employers of scientists as the product they are p…
It's a shame the incentives are all wrong for getting scientists to defend their work in unsympathetic forums. I work in the physics field and have authored/coauthored papers in scientific journals so I think I see how it works. The incentives are 1) to publish - papers are looked upon by employers of scientists as the product they are paying for; 2) to present your paper at as many professional conferences as possible to increase the clout of both you and your employer; and 3) to garner as much influence in the field as possible through citations of your paper in other work and collaboration with other scientists based on your work. There's no incentive for a scientist to go to a VSRF conference or any forum that's generally hostile. He stands to gain nothing for that. Yes, there is sometimes unsympathetic debate at professional conferences, but it's not that common. By the time your paper makes it through peer review, you are usually in a pretty good position to defend against the attacks by that "echo chamber" type of audience, half of which is asleep anyway. That's why climate "science" conferences survive. It's mainly a bunch of junk scientists patting themselves on the back to protect their salaries. Nobody wants to kill the goose that lays that golden egg.
It's a shame the incentives are all wrong for getting scientists to defend their work in unsympathetic forums. I work in the physics field and have authored/coauthored papers in scientific journals so I think I see how it works. The incentives are 1) to publish - papers are looked upon by employers of scientists as the product they are paying for; 2) to present your paper at as many professional conferences as possible to increase the clout of both you and your employer; and 3) to garner as much influence in the field as possible through citations of your paper in other work and collaboration with other scientists based on your work. There's no incentive for a scientist to go to a VSRF conference or any forum that's generally hostile. He stands to gain nothing for that. Yes, there is sometimes unsympathetic debate at professional conferences, but it's not that common. By the time your paper makes it through peer review, you are usually in a pretty good position to defend against the attacks by that "echo chamber" type of audience, half of which is asleep anyway. That's why climate "science" conferences survive. It's mainly a bunch of junk scientists patting themselves on the back to protect their salaries. Nobody wants to kill the goose that lays that golden egg.