You simply can't try to make this argument without discussing the merits of this man's argument, and they're patently absurd.

The truth of the matter is, the reason why scientific opinion has been devalued has been because of two things:

Premature publicity for studies that have not been subject to adequate peer review. Essentially, this means that some scientist puts up a study that isn't verified by the rest of the scientific community, and the media jumps on it because it's an interesting topic.

People then assume that it's a legitimate study, thus downgrading the opinion of the scientific establishment.

The second reason, is because people with an ideological wheelbarrow to push are doing their damnedest to misrepresent and challenge scientific theory.

Creationists being the foremost among them. The vast majority of geneticists and people with an advanced understanding of the building blocks of human life agree with evolution to an extent - that doesn't mean they don't believe in a god as well, it simply means that they find the idea that the earth was created only about 6,000 years ago as patently absurd.

Yet fundamentalist christians don't want to believe that. It baffles me, to be honest, because it's so stupid. These beliefs don't have to be mutually exclusive. We don't need fools coming up with ideas like the vegetarian T-rex at the US creation museum (this mightn't sound tolerant and PC, but I'm afraid that place is a blight on mankind's intellectual progress).

As I understand it, the aramaic word for day actually means a period of time. Thus, the time could be interpreted in a variety of methods, and I don't see why you can't believe evolution was part of god's plan.

And the moment creationists start pushing for their belief to be taught in schools in Australia, I'll be demanding that the Flying Spaghetti Monster be given just as much credence. After all, Pastafarians deserve just as much respect:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter

stevenlmeyer: "THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS WHAT SCIENTISTS WHO WANT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS AND RESEARCH GRANTS ARE PREPARED TO SAY IN PUBLIC"

Bulldust, Steven. The crux of this matter is that both Summers and Watson made speculative, controversially political statements that were not the results of scientific research. As respected academics, they have a duty to restrict their public utterances as academics to those that are supported by evidence or research.

Neither Summers' speculation about gender nor Watson's about race has any credible basis in published data. Scientists need to be very careful when making politically controversial statements, particularly when they are outside their fields of expertise.

You are correct Foxy.

Universities have been a major source of scientific innovation. The BASIC research that made possible microchips, polio vaccines and fuel cells, to name but three, was all done in university laboratories.

It was university academics who first alerted the world to the dangers of climate change.

But another important role of university researchers is to act as the HONEST BROKERS. For example, it is unrealistic to expect drug companies to tell us the whole story about the efficacy of the treatments they peddle. For that sort of information we need to rely on independent researchers doing the hard yards.

Similarly, when it comes to issues like climate change, we expect independent scientists to confirm the results of research.

That is why it is so important that academic researchers maintain their credibility. In some cases this is well recognised. For example today the best medical journals require researchers to disclose any links, financial or otherwise, they may have with drug companies. In addition full disclosure of all trial results, including unfavourable ones, is required in assessing the efficacy and safety of a drug. The system is not perfect but it is an order of magnitude better than it was, say, 5 years ago.

The best way to destroy credibility is to punish those who express contrary views. That is precisely what the scientific community has done in the case of Messrs Summers and Watson.

If you disagree with Summers' speculation about the gender distribution of scientific genius the correct way is to demonstrate its falsity, if it is false. Hounding him out of his job is exactly the wrong thing to do.

But, you know what Foxy?

IN THE END THE TRUTH WILL OUT. It always does. Someone will do the research and we'll know whether Summers' or Watson's speculations have any basis in fact.

TRTL, CJ MORGAN,

Here's how it works in the world of science.

Scientists are required to back up their statements with evidence. There is nothing to stop scientists making speculative statements but they do have to give reasons why they believe there may be some substance to their speculations.

Once the evidence has been presented critics are free to rebut it if they can.

This process applies no matter how repugnant some people may find the thesis presented.

Of course in reality there aren't enough hours in the day to rebut every crank. Mostly this does not matter. Boaz may rabbit on about evolution but he does not have the profile that will convince anyone other than his fellow true believers. There is also no point in engaging Boaz and his ilk in debate because, as we in the reality based community understand, most devout Muslims and a sizeable minority of devout Christians will not believe evolution no matter what evidence is presented.

But Watson is a high-profile figure. He has a track record of excellent science and was an outstanding administrator at Cold Spring Harbor. Because of his popular books he has a following in the general public. People pay attention to Watson's pronouncements.

He has made a number of statements which, if correct, have grave implications. He should be asked to present his evidence. His critics may then rebut him if they can.

It is precisely because Watson is such a high profile figure and because this is such a touchy subject that I think it imperative that the proper procedures be followed. At the moment all the scientific community has done is create a martyr to political correctness.

I don't want to say more because I have not yet read Watson's book. I have it on order but it hasn't arrived yet.

As I wrote in my previous post, in the end TRUTH WILL OUT. Eventually we'll know whether there is any substance to Summers' and Watson's speculations

Dear Steven,

Well argued... bravo!

stevenlmeyer: "Here's how it works in the world of science.

Scientists are required to back up their statements with evidence. There is nothing to stop scientists making speculative statements but they do have to give reasons why they believe there may be some substance to their speculations."

As a former academic scientist, I know perfectly well the way the world of science works. Where Summers and Watson both erred was in making speculative statements that were politically controversial and outside their own specialisations. As senior administrators they were rightly pilloried for it.

They didn't present scientific theses - they made politically stupid speculations (Summers to a closed economics conference and Watson in a newspaper interview) that both should have known would be the subject of controversy if publicly disseminated.

Science may be value free, but the world in which it operates certainly isn't.