1 当找不到理由反驳理论文章的论证时,主流理论审稿人指责你的文章不是科学研究论文,因为你文章力没有报道新的实验数据。
为了迎合主流科学家的口味,甚至预印本平台也把没有新实验数据的理论文章作为观点文章拒绝刊登。
“对预印本文献的引用要慎重”是鼓励人们做伪科学,或者是做惯了伪科学的结果
在错误的语言体系中呆久了的主流科学家不能理解正确语言体系中的语言表达和逻辑思维
大多数主流科学家的同行评审学术不端是比“图片误用”更恶劣的学术不端
很多主流科学家以为只有实验研究才是科学研究。
没有实验数据的报道,他们就不认为是科学研究。
化学不是实验科学、物理不是实验科学、正确的理论才是检验科学的唯一标准
2 对于主流科学家,利益高于真理
诺贝尔奖获得者通常因为颠覆性创新受到主流科学家的欺凌,都曾经在成名后挺身而出企图做出改变:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light,
but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
M. Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Paper, William & Norgate, London, 1950, pp. 33 -34.
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/407998797
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/363487648
诺奖得主本庶佑:CNS这些顶刊观点有九成不正确,不要盲从迷信,搞科研做到六个C更重要_研究生 (sohu.com)
How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science | Semantic Scholar
Randy Schekman and Nature’s tyranny | Science in the net (scienceonthenet.eu)
但是主流科学家的势力是如此之大,你诺贝尔奖获得者别以为你取得了公认的成果就可以做出任何改变。
最终,这些诺贝尔奖获得者也不得不低头闭嘴,放弃抗争。
面对利益和真理,主流科学家更珍视前者。
Ethical problems in academic peer review - Peeref
世界上的罪恶都是在冠冕堂皇的理由下进行的;
那些敢于揭露罪恶的都会被冠以“格局不高”的罪名。
3 现代科学华而不实
没有理论深度的实验报告大多数是肤浅的,无论这种文章看上去多么吸引人:
The Quarter-Wavelength Theory of Microwave Absorption Has Been Debunked I (growkudos.com)
“Beyond these considerations, the importance of many of the more recent developments cannot be evaluated objectively at this time. The history of mathematics teaches us that many subjects which aroused tremendous enthusiasm and engaged the attention of the best mathematicians ultimately faded into oblivion ... Indeed one of the interesting questions that the history answers is what survives in mathematics. History makes its own and sounder evaluations.”
--Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972, ISBN 0-19-506136-5
引申:历史是最公正的。历史反复证明,那些在当世喧嚣尘上的东西往往是主流学者刻意炒作的糟粕,而那些被当世打压的经常是真金白银。 Expansion: History serves as the ultimate arbiter. It consistently reveals that what is often overemphasized by the prominent scholars of an era is often merely the intentional promotion of mediocrity, while that which is suppressed by the prevailing contemporary scholars often reveals itself to be authentic and of true value.
很多顶刊编辑以貌取人,不仅仅因为他们更重视作者的出身而不是文章的质量,
更是因为他们更重视文章中的图例是不是更吸引人,实验手段是不是用了高精尖的仪器。
公式越多越容易被拒。
于是乎,葫芦娃、嫦娥奔月这种异想天开的图形出现在顶刊中,并且成为封面文章,严重误导科学研究。
孙悟空一个跟头十万八千里的奇思怪想与飞机、宇宙飞船没有半毛钱的关系。
4 相当多数的主流科学家是草包
相当多数主流科学权威是在教学滑坡时期培养出来的,
他们对于本科知识并没有真的学懂,却能因为拿到大量研究经费与顶刊编辑建立良好个人关系,
因而他们大量的顶刊论文是腐败机制下发表的垃圾。
上海交通大学杨枫教授-把学术界改造成美丽世界-科学网视频-科学网 (sciencenet.cn)
一个国际SCI刊物的副主编,国际结晶学会理论与数学分会的创始人和前任主席,他的一篇很短的文章中充满大学本科水平的错误,他的文章刚一投稿就被录用,但是反驳文章不许发表:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0889311X.2017.1339034
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0889311X.2017.1323332
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-020-2498-5
Massimo Nespolo obtained his MSc in Chemistry from the University of Torino, Italy, and his DrSc in mineralogy from the University of Tokyo, Japan. After a post-doctoral experience at the National Institute of Materials Science, Tsukuba, Japan, he obtained the position of Professor at the Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France. He is the founder and former chair of the Commission on Mathematical and Theoretical Crystallography of the International Union of Crystallography. His research interests concentrate on twinning and modular structures and their group-theoretical description.
主流科学家只能根据同行评审期刊的等级判断文章的质量。
他们自身能力很差,不能给出有价值的审稿意见。
主流科学家为了自己的一己私利,对于期刊伪同行评审,死死地抱着不肯放手。
同行评审使专业阶层将信息把关过程变成了保护他们自身地位的保障
“对预印本文献的引用要慎重”是鼓励人们做伪科学,或者是做惯了伪科学的结果
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权,同时请注明本文来自刘跃科学网博客。
链接地址:https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1431502.html?mobile=1
收藏