[inamiyar]

Not to be rude, but this post just puts unwarranted faith in "science" and "experts".

For example, experts apparently collect evidence in "an unbiased, objective manner". What? Says who. Those "methods have to be available to other scientists for replication." Seems like an odd thing for an article with no author and two citations.

Frankly, there is no objective research, and fetishizing authority and "experts" (a group of people where, e.g., African Americans are underrepresented) is both harmful and dumb. There is a ton of literature on how science often does not follow it's systematic claims at all, check out Kuhn's work for an intro.

[quantified]

Are you more worried about the ethnic or cultural makeup of any set of knowledgeable people than the fact that they do or don’t have knowledge? How do you determine that African-Americans are underrepresented as “experts”-where is your research?

Of course humans don’t live up to their ideals. There is no “science” on its own, there are people conscientiously or not applying scientific methods and honesty, or not. Which kinds of expertise should we ditch first, which should we hold on to? Maybe a Great Leap Forward to get everyone on the same page? Even tobacco, oil and pharma scientists had good science, which was covered up by the companies.

[upsidesinclude]

Haha, now you've gone and done your own research! How dare you not accept this unattributed article at face value

But evidently, you are expected to understand (read: care enough to investigate) this accomplished assistant professor, defying all convention, does not place her name in the articles.

That being said, this smacks of scientism and not science, which is to question and investigate. It is quite pedantic to claim the word research must be some prescribed series of activities as opposed to what it is: a turn of phrase.

'Your mileage may vary'

'Do your own research'

See how these things might mean something and also not be literal intepretations... No? Then this is a great article for you to confirm your bias towards people that don't believe everything that's 'fit to print'

[ahahahahah]

> Seems like an odd thing for an article with no author

I see your ability to do your own research is exactly as described in the article. The article is from a single-person website, her background is provided in detail in the site's about page.