Do you believe in scrutiny?

I keep on coming back to this question, and am reminded of it once again by the current debate in the social media on the merits of the recent TV programme on "the Lost Circle."  On Facebook and Twitter, and on discussions associated with YouTube videos, the debate rages on, with some people prepared to express their concerns about the contents of the programme and others defending it to the hilt, on the grounds that Prof Alice Roberts and Prof Mike Parker Pearson "must know what they are talking about."  Well, thank goodness we live in a world where such debate is possible, even if a great deal of it is ill-informed!

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/07/sagan-scrutiny-and-baloney.html

One of my heroes, Carl Sagan, wrote a great deal about science and scientific scrutiny, and argued that without careful peer-review and assessment, science is effectively dead.  He bewailed the apparent loss -- in the population at large -- of "the ability to knowledgeably question."  He of course was a passionate advocate of more science and less mythology in all fields of research.......

Back to Prof Alice Roberts, who said just the other day in one of her tweets:

"Genuine scientific discourse is being shut down and the media are all presenting a highly-politicised, one-sided view -- ignoring evidence."

She is a Professor of Public Engagement with Science at Birmingham University, so we would expect her to say things like this.  But maybe she regrets saying it, because in her recent TV programme with Prof Mike Parker Pearson she did exactly what she was complaining about, presenting a myth as the truth, presenting one interpretation of some features on the ground to the exclusion of all other perfectly valid interpretations, and indeed encouraging a socio-political gloss to be placed onto some extremely fanciful theories.  Oh yes -- and ignoring all evidence that was deemed to be inconvenient.

I suppose some will criticise me for pointing that out -- and they will go on to say "It was just a TV show, designed to stimulate interest in archaeology!  We shouldn't take it seriously! What really matters is the article in "Antiquity"  -- that is where we find the sound science......"

Except, of course, that that is not where we find the sound science at all.  That is where we find another egregious attempt to sell a ruling hypothesis, with no acknowledgement that any of the interpretations are disputed in the literature, without any citation of "inconvenient" field evidence or publications, and without any respect for the normal academic protocols of research presentation.

So when I have to put up with people who attack me personally and who question my qualifications and my credentials, I am of course somewhat disappointed.  But when they attack me for not publishing in "reputable journals" and for criticising articles by others which are published in those very same journals, I get just a little bit angry.  I have been a journal editor myself, and I know that if you want to publish any old rubbish, it can be arranged -- simply through choosing a couple of tame referees who will give said rubbish an easy ride.  Peer review is not a guarantee of quality.   I like publishing on Researchgate and Academia, as long as there is no pretence involved.  It is democratic, and it is immediate. (If I submit to a high-ranked journal, it may well take 2 years for an article to see the light of day -- and two years in "bluestone archaeology" is a very long time.)   I refer to my web publications as "working papers", "commentaries" or "pre-prints" and invite open debate either through the comments or letters facility, or on open channels like this one, on Blogger.   I'm not trying to bamboozle anybody.  If something is rubbish, it will be rubbished by knowledgeable critics, and I welcome that.

On the other side of the coin, we have a research team of quite senior academics who have, since 2010, published frequently, used high pressure media campaigns very successfully, steadfastly refused to engage in debate or discussion,  refused to cite "inconvenient" but highly relevant research (yes, including papers published in peer-reviewed journals and carefully edited books), and  continued to develop an extraordinary narrative based upon highly suspect evidence.

So next time somebody has a go at me for daring to question the research methods or the results of some learned professor or other,  I will ask them to look not at the press releases or the media coverage but at the article which is being being cited and lauded.  Never mind what it says on the tin -- does it deliver? Do you believe in scrutiny?  And if so (let us assume that your answer is "Yes") who should do it?  People who have never been within a hundred miles of the sites being researched, or people who know the territory and the context?  What should be done with the results of the scrutiny?  And finally, what should we do with researchers who steadfastly refuse to accept or acknowledge the scrutiny of other experts?