Reliability of Sources: Questioning & Rejecting

[Glype11]

I seen on another site where a user called out the site moderators for ignoring facts of science from a previous thread. They used what appeared to be reliable sources that went against the site moderators.

What got my curiosity level up is how the thread was closed quickly by the moderator saying anyone can find anything online. The problem is the sources weren't just some random info. Both were from actual people who appeared to be experts in the science in question. That got me curious about sources in science.

How can you make sure a source is reliable?
If the source is believed to be reliable, is there still room to question it or even outright reject it?

 

[russ_watters]

Both were from actual people who appeared to be experts in the science in question. That got me curious about sources in science.

How can you make sure a source is reliable?
If the source is believed to be reliable, is there still room to question it or even outright reject it?

Real science is shared and discussed in peer reviewed journals, conferences and other professional settings, by people with names and verifiable resumes/track records. "In science..." isn't a thing on message boards, though we do try to approximate it here.

 

[fresh_42]

Both were from actual people who appeared to be experts in the science in question.

Stephen Hawking was a reputable expert in physics. Nevertheless, A Brief History of Time is not science.

 

[HAYAO]

"Real" science is a knowledge based on an accumulation of carefully selected various peer-reviewed academic papers that is refined continuously by the intellectual community. So one or two sources usually don't negate what science has established. If it challenges current science, it merely adds to it, not completely reverse it.

So to answer the question, the only way you know whether a source is reliable or not is if you part of this community and understand in whole what current science is. For example, my research area is photophysical properties of lanthanides. So I can speak well about lanthanides, but I don't know much about chemical biology because I don't belong in that community and I don't share their knowledge. So I can relatively judge the reliability of a paper in my research area, but can't in chemical biology.

 

[Glype11]

Stephen Hawking was a reputable expert in physics. Nevertheless, A Brief History of Time is not science.

The difference is the topic in question is not theoretical it's about a scientific law. So wouldn't it be safe to say that one side must be correct because scientific laws are not subjective?

"Real" science is a knowledge based on an accumulation of carefully selected various peer-reviewed academic papers that is refined continuously by the intellectual community. So one or two sources usually don't negate what science has established. If it challenges current science, it merely adds to it, not completely reverse it.

So to answer the question, the only way you know whether a source is reliable or not is if you part of this community and understand in whole what current science is. For example, my research area is photophysical properties of lanthanides. So I can speak well about lanthanides, but I don't know much about chemical biology because I don't belong in that community and I don't share their knowledge. So I can relatively judge the reliability of a paper in my research area, but can't in chemical biology.

I don't think the sources negate established science they just back how a scientific law is used.

By that I'm not part of the community so I guess I can't say anything about the sources.

Real science is shared and discussed in peer reviewed journals, conferences and other professional settings, by people with names and verifiable resumes/track records. "In science..." isn't a thing on message boards, though we do try to approximate it here.

The sources had verifiable resumes/track records. I'm sure the site moderator would have to be reliable as well but I can't find their actual name so I can't verify anything.

 

[russ_watters]

The difference is the topic in question is not theoretical it's about a scientific law. So wouldn't it be safe to say that one side must be correct because scientific laws are not subjective?

No. Even the term "scientific law" itself is problematic/debatable.

The sources had verifiable resumes/track records. I'm sure the site moderator would have to be reliable as well but I can't find their actual name so I can't verify anything.

But it's just a message board, right? The message board owner sets the rules and they need not have anything to do with how real science is done. Again, message board discussion is not how real science is done. If you're asking us to adjudicate a moderation dispute on another message board, we can't do that. If you ask a question on a scientific principle (in the appropriate forum), we can answer that.

 

[fresh_42]

The difference is the topic in question is not theoretical it's about a scientific law. So wouldn't it be safe to say that one side must be correct because scientific laws are not subjective?

Not at all. If you say "scientific law" then I expect a complete mathematical description of circumstances, assumptions, and measurements. A "law" is only valid in a combination with its scope.

I recently thought, that being a mathematician makes even everyday news complicated. If someone says that a study has shown ... then my first question isn't what it had shown; it is what database with which assumptions had been used. The result is totally irrelevant without that information.

 

[Glype11]

But it's just a message board, right? The message board owner sets the rules and they need not have anything to do with how real science is done. Again, message board discussion is not how real science is done. If you're asking us to adjudicate a moderation dispute on another message board, we can't do that. If you ask a question on a scientific principle (in the appropriate forum), we can answer that.

It's a message board that is mostly about science similar to this site. They have a major rule to back up statements with valid evidence so for them to close a thread that has verified sources with thei reason used is very strange.

I agree, a message board is not how real science is done, but it can be how real science is duscussed.

I am looking to get a clear explanation on who is correct. I am user on that message board as well and I received negative reputation for using a verified source but the topic wasn't nearly as clear cut as the issue about the scientific law. If I learn from reliable sources that the site moderator was wrong then I wouldn't use that site again. I can understand why users from an outside site may not wish to openly question another site. I can't give it full context without showing all the quotes and sources.

 

[fresh_42]

It's a message board that is mostly about science similar to this site.

There is no way for us to figure out
a) what was going on
b) who made which decision
c) whether the decision has been justified or not
d) anything about the quality of that post

I am looking to get a clear explanation on who is correct.

The only way to get this information is to ask the persons in charge, not us.

I am user on that message board as well and I received negative reputation for using a verified source but the topic wasn't nearly as clear cut as the issue about the scientific law. If I learn from reliable sources that the site moderator was wrong then I wouldn't use that site again. I can understand why users from an outside site may not wish to openly question another site. I can't give it full context without showing all the quotes and sources.

We tried to show you, that "science" and "reliable sources" cannot always be pinned down on a black and white level. That is all we can do. The rest is guesswork. Not to mention, that someone simply might have had a bad day, or the poster had a history of similar posts. All those things might have been the case, and there is no way we can tell.

All we can say is, that such events are the main reason why we ask for the reference of a paper published in a reputable science journal or a textbook if in doubt. Both, publications as described and textbooks allow the readers to look for details and conditions, in or for which a statement has been made.

E.g. we have a list of what we understand as reputable journals:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/list-of-credible-physics-journals.802198/

Since the discussion has exhausted its given information, this thread is closed.