首页> 外文期刊>Mutation Research. Reviews in Mutation Research >Scientific feuds, polemics, and ad hominem arguments in basic and special-interest genetics
【24h】

Scientific feuds, polemics, and ad hominem arguments in basic and special-interest genetics

机译:基础和特殊兴趣遗传学的科学斗争,致敬和广告Hominem争论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Abstract Scientific disputes are commonly presented and settled in journal publications. Most are resolved by a weighing of evidence and new findings. In some cases the arguments are personal and in the form of ad hominem attacks on the personality or integrity of an author of a journal article. Many famous scientists (e.g., Galileo, Newton, and Hooke) used ad hominem arguments in responding to their critics. William Bateson, W.F.R. Weldon, William Castle, and H.J. Muller used ad hominem arguments in their publications until the end of World War I, when editorial policy of journals changed. Motivating some of the attacks are philosophic differences (such as holistic or reductionist approaches to science), ideological differences (such as Marxist or Capitalist outlooks), politics (such as Cold War depictions by East and West on fallout from nuclear testing), or conflicts of interest (which can be professional or financial such as the debates over nontraditional and orthodox medicine or over tobacco smoking and health). Most of the time, the disputes are motivated by honest disagreements over the interpretation of the data. A recent surge (2009–2016) of ad hominem attacks by Edward Calabrese has appeared disparaging H. J. Muller, E. B. Lewis, other twentieth-century contributors to radiation genetics, and the National Academy of Sciences. They address the mutational effects of low-dose radiation exposure. Calabrese’s attacks have led to responses by geneticists in the field of mutagenesis, by agencies criticized by Calabrese, and by students and colleagues of those who have been accused of deception by Calabrese. This article reviews some of the history of ad hominem arguments in science and the background to the attacks by Calabrese. I argue that Calabrese’s characterization of Muller and his supporters is unjust, misleading, and hurtful. I also propose some methods for dealing with or preventing ad hominem attacks in professional journals.
机译:摘要常规呈现科学纠纷,并在杂志出版物中陈述。大多数是通过权衡证据和新发现来解决。在某些情况下,论据是个人的,是关于期刊文章作者的人格或完整性的广告的个人形式。许多着名的科学家(例如,伽利略,牛顿和胡克)使用了AD Hominem争论来回应他们的批评者。 William Bateson,W.F.R. Weldon,William Castle和H.J.Muller在他们的出版物中使用了AD Hominem争论,直到第一次世界大战结束时,期刊的编辑政策发生了变化。激励一些攻击是哲学差异(如整体或调整学家对科学的方法),思想差异(如马克思主义或资本主义前景),政治(如东部和西部的冷战描绘,核试验中的后果)或冲突感兴趣的(可以是专业或财务,例如非传统和正统医学或烟草吸烟和健康的辩论。大多数时候,争议是通过诚实的分歧而对数据解释的激励。 Edward Calabrese的AD Hominem攻击最近的一个浪涌(2009-2016)出现了H. J. Muller,E. B. Lewis,其他二十世纪的辐射遗传学贡献者,以及国家科学院。它们解决了低剂量辐射暴露的突变效应。 Calabrese的攻击导致遗传学家在诱变领域的遗传学家,由Calabrese批评的机构以及由Calabrese被指控欺骗的人和同事的机构。本文审查了科学中的广告Hominem论文的一些历史,以及Calabrese的攻击背景。我争辩说,卡拉布里斯对穆勒和他的支持者的表征是不公正的,误导性和伤害。我还提出了一些方法来处理或阻止专业期刊中的AD Hominem攻击。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号