Critical thinking is hard. It requires training and discipline. Its not just about intelligence.
I feel like I am learning so much more about all aspects of critical thinking in science from the PACE fiasco.
Soapbox warning.
Although Hilda listed some problems that have solutions (open access research, enforcing rules on conflict of interest, further use of pubmed commons, separation of drug companies from their own product testing, et) I think some of the problems that create research bias are too human to for us to ever eliminate entirely, or even almost entirely. Unless we financially sanction bad research, bad researchers, and bad spin-doctors (think of the scientists hired by the fossil fuel industry to make global warming into a debate) I imagine money will continue to pollute any debate it wants to. And being from USA, where free speech is a constitutional right, I cannot think that presenting bad research in a good light should be illegal unless one can prove a motive to deceive. If we stifle expression, we stifle the emergence of the next paradigm. Science has almost never
not been perverted for political or monetary gain (the exception, I would assume, would be when science was regarded as crazy). As long as money talks, we will continue to have public policy debates based on inaccurate or misleading studies.
Can we make our systems better? Yes. Can we improve upon human nature? That is more or less up to each individual.
I would actually like to see moderated debates between the two sides in some of these intellectual conflicts. Sort of like an unofficial court of law, where one would submit a paper as evidence, and then the other could dispute the validity of that evidence. Appeals to authority would of course be invalid. Perhaps then we could at least get all the cards on the table. As things stand right now, it is much more like two people yelling at each other from across the room--neither one responding to what the other had to say.
