The Way Science Should Be Done

Or at least to sociologist of science Robert K. Merton and me:

1. Originality. Scientific results should always be original, i.e., novel.

2. Detachment. Scientists undertake their work with no motive other than the advancement of knowledge. They should have no personal axis to grind insofar as the results of their work go, and they should have no psychological commitment to a particular point of view.

3. Universality. Claims and arguments should be given weight according to their intrinsic merits alone, and should not depend upon religion, social, ethnic, or personal factors surrounding the individuals who make them.

4. Skepticism. No scientific statements of fact should be taken on faith. All claims should be carefully scrutinized for invalid arguments and errors of fact, and any such mistakes should be made public immediately.

5. Public accessibility. All scientific knowledge should be freely available to anyone.

Good set of standards. A six standard could be "do not do an experiment that is immoral." I don't think when he mentioned the "religious" aspect of the the Universality norm he meant disregard morals. Just don't let your own biases interfere with the results.

Too bad the global warming scientists don't follow these especially the last four norms which are the most important I think.