Letter: Limits of science
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: "Maverick scientists" may be usually wrong (Lewis Wolpert, 16 July)
but this does not mean that science is not adversarial. It is not just
the media which likes to portray science as so many arguments.
Some science may be consensus driven, but this is like saying cricket
is, because the players understand the conditions for one team to win.
The clearest illustration of this is the example of Stephen Hawking and
Kip Thorne, who make wagers on disputed theories.
Good science is not done by mavericks or conformists, but by those who
collate and present evidence in a way which would withstand a hostile
counsel and convince a sceptical jury.
Scientists who do not consider their case as if it was being reviewed
critically always produce bad science, as in the Pons and Fleischmann
"cold fusion" case.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments