Nature came out with a statement recently that they will only pick and choose science to publish that agrees with their worldview. Nothing published there can be trusted as Nature is no longer a true science journal.
Gonna need a source for that
Personally I consider this damning, ymmv.
If tomorrow you were to find in a reproducible experiment that people with samoans origins are not good at abstract math you would be "stigmatizing" the population and your research would be banned.
The problem with the word "stigmatize" is that it is a code word that draws a line of what may be studied and published.
It is basically a warning to steer clear of anything "controversial" because at any time it could be declared at "stigmatizing" and there would be no recourse.
You don't think that maybe we should make sure there's one person on the research team who can be like, "so, you aren't accounting for this variable, which is cultural but also probably hidden from those who don't come from the culture"?
any research that finds that X is worse at Y must be wrong somehow because we know it cannot possibly be like that - so we are not publishing it at all - no discourse is allowed on the matter
one censor decides what is "stigmatizing"
You are saying it's unreasonable to check in with a member of a culture you are about to publish something negative about.
The only thing that's important is whether the research was conducted honestly and whether the data is accurate or not.
Stigmatizing is something other people can do or not do with that information, and the people doing the stigmatizing are the ones who should be held responsible for it. Suppressing research because you're afraid someone else might misinterpret it or use it as a justification to do something wrong is not a way to make scientific progress.
Whatever truth about the world the research reveals will still be there and we will be less equipped to deal with it by hiding in ignorance out of fear.
If you've got someone who is a part of that group who participated in the research, you go ahead and publish it.
You are putting words in their mouths and then condemning them for it. You want to keep beating up a strawman, go ahead.
The lack of integrity you're displaying is the important part.
This is an open-and-shut statement that they will publish data which says what they want it to say.
Or rather, that peer review will reject papers for reasons that have nothing to do with their scientific validity.
Which is the same thing. This isn't science, anymore. Everything they publish from now on must be considered useless unless replicated elsewhere.
It says that the scientific method is enhanced by having people with knowledge about a domain involved in the research.
I am not Japanese. I'm not Finnish. I've never been to Finland or Japan. If I write an academic paper about the educational culture of these two countries, you don't think it would benefit from having a Finnish or Japanese person involved?
That's out of Bitcoin's control. One could argue that it is a way to sabotage the project -that of turning it into an speculative investment.