Why things need to be published
Posted by David Zaslavsky onA pharmacologist at Oxford, Susan Greenfield, is putting forward a theory that computer games cause dementia in children. The theory itself doesn’t really concern me, but I do notice that often when someone comes out with a theory like this, people tend to be pretty dismissive — you hear things like “How can you possibly think that?” Well, every fact we know about the world had to be thought by someone first, and just because it sounds ridiculous or even offensive doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
However, any theory, especially a controversial one, does need to be verified or rejected with plenty of evidence, and that’s where publication comes in. At the Bad Science blog post linked above, Dr. Goldacre makes a good point
Science has authority, not because of white coats, or titles, but because of precision and transparency: you explain your theory, set out your evidence, and reference the studies that support your case. Other scientists can then read it, see if you’ve fairly represented the evidence; and decide whether the methods of the papers you’ve cited really do produce results that meaningfully support your hypothesis.
…
In this regard, I don’t mean peer …