Off-topic discussion of the problem of "peer review" in journals

[Tiedemies]

I may have, along with many others, somewhat overreacted. Just to give an idea of the sort of triggering Vox Day causes in some people previously exposed to him, I suppose this would be equivalent to someone writing from libertarian position on taxation, with a quote from Bernie Sanders to back up your argument.

[J-Mo]

What is it about this entirely accurate summary of the situation within the vast majority of the academic/governmental science establishment that leads you to be "crushed" by my use of this as analogy to what we're doing in contrast to the ExFizz people?

It’s not ‘child-like faith’ in the process. It is confidence in the process based on evidence from advances in science, technology, and medicine that the process works. By definition, it is not ‘faith’. I’m not choosing to believe what makes me happiest. Wake up and look at what humans have accomplished in the past 50 years. What do you want from science that it has failed to deliver?

You’re asking what about your use of his statement bothers me? The title of his column was “Most science is ‘fake science’”! You are spreading a message which is genuinely meant to delegitimize real research that produces real cures for real diseases in order to promote a recreational weightlifting program!

What is your/his argument anyways? Should we stop publishing papers? Should we stop doing research? Should the government stop funding us? What are you trying to accomplish?

You really don’t have a more sophisticated argument than just to nitpick a minor issue with the process by which scientists solve problems, do you?

Obviously, I’m also done promoting Starting Strength.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Obviously. Starting Strength doesn't work anyway.

[Brodie Butland]

Stuff from Vox

I appreciate these other sites, and I suppose maybe the gulf between Vox and I according to these statements aren't all that different.

But I find it hard to take Vox seriously on these points when he refers to evolution as "most likely little more than pseudo-scientific fiction." Vox may very well honestly believe that science and scientists/scientism are different things. Or he may be using this distinction as a disingenuous cover to attack all scientific theories he disagrees with. I can't read minds, so I can't say either way.

Typically those who wish to adopt crackpot scientific theories like creation science use similar types of assertions--"we love science, it's those damn biased scientists we can't stand." I find Vox's casual of evolution but his embracing of demonstrably wrong counterassertions somewhat revealing, especially given that creation science and its progeny (which Vox seems to embrace) simply doesn't demonstrate a rigorous application of the scientific method. But even giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he doesn't have a particular ideological axe to grind, he still goes way too far in suggesting that the work of scientists who accept well-established theories can be dismissed simply as towing the party line. Scientists could subscribe to a particular theory because that's how they get funding, or they could do so because that's what all of the evidence points to. Vox seems to have a knee-jerk assumption of the former.

Where there does seem to be genuine disagreement between you and Vox is on the trustworthiness of scientists in general. But based on what you have said in the above quotes, I honestly don't understand why. Take politicians. Both have substantial incentives to lie and cut corners. Neither are supermen, impervious to those pressures. Arguably the politician has more "peer review" than does the scientist between political opponents and the press. Why would you put more faith in scientists than politicians? And I ask this as a co-author of two papers published in scientific journals.

The ultimate aim of science is discovering truth about our natural universe. This is done through examining observable data. When new data is discovered, it can be combined with the previous data to determine whether an existing hypothesis, theory, or understanding is still supportable.

The ultimate aim of a lawyer, by contrast, is to persuade a person or group of persons that his client's position is correct. This involves intentionally emphasizing some evidence (data), intentionally soft-pedaling or hand-waving other evidence, and creating a story that resonates with the decision-maker. As anyone who watches floor debates or watches Sunday political shows knows, politicians do the exact same thing--which isn't all that surprising given the undue emphasis on party loyalty, and that over half of the House and over a third of the Senate are lawyers.

That to me is the difference. There is a defined end goal of science--discovery of truth--that has nothing to do with the particular scientists involved. Politics and law don't share this same goal. Further, science has a simple method of correction: examine the data and come up with another, better explanation. Scientist 1 may fudge data or have an implicitly biased view of the data, but Scientist 2 could point out the flaws in gathering that data, or could obtain other data and show that Scientist 1's conclusions are unreliable, or could do a meta-analysis to show that Scientist 1's conclusions are less reliable than alternative explanations, and the like. What is the analog of this in law or politics?

Simply saying "well, we're all subject to biases, therefore we can distrust everyone equally" is a cop-out. Are scientists flawed? Of course...human judgment is always subject to bias, even if unintentional. But most scientists, at least in my experience, try to follow the data and try to check their biases, because that's what they're supposed to do. Sometimes they fail, because they're human. There's a reason, however, why the hard sciences have made unprecedented progress in understanding the natural world and creating technology for human betterment--because, as a whole, scientists are data-driven, anyone can critique or correct anyone else based on the data, and the data is what determines the validity of a theory, not the persuasiveness of the particular individual who is offering the theory.

What progress in truth-seeking have politicians or lawyers come up with over the past four centuries? I ask this as a proud practicing lawyer.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I may have, along with many others, somewhat overreacted. Just to give an idea of the sort of triggering Vox Day causes in some people previously exposed to him, I suppose this would be equivalent to someone writing from libertarian position on taxation, with a quote from Bernie Sanders to back up your argument.

And if Bernie Sanders had said something that was both true and useful, I would quote him. For example:

“I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.”

-- Joseph Stalin, 1923

Both true and useful, and were I writing a piece for which this was a relevant introduction, I would have no problem with using it. Those of you who have a problem with my using the Vox Day quote have shown commendable restraint by not calling me a racist, yet. But I suspect it will be along shortly.

[tanis0]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Brodie.

I appreciate these other sites, and I suppose maybe the gulf between Vox and I according to these statements aren't all that different.

But I find it hard to take Vox seriously on these points when he refers to evolution as "most likely little more than pseudo-scientific fiction." Vox may very well honestly believe that science and scientists/scientism are different things. Or he may be using this distinction as a disingenuous cover to attack all scientific theories he disagrees with. I can't read minds, so I can't say either way.

Typically those who wish to adopt crackpot scientific theories like creation science use similar types of assertions--"we love science, it's those damn biased scientists we can't stand." I find Vox's casual of evolution but his embracing of demonstrably wrong counterassertions somewhat revealing, especially given that creation science and its progeny (which Vox seems to embrace) simply doesn't demonstrate a rigorous application of the scientific method. But even giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he doesn't have a particular ideological axe to grind, he still goes way too far in suggesting that the work of scientists who accept well-established theories can be dismissed simply as towing the party line. Scientists could subscribe to a particular theory because that's how they get funding, or they could do so because that's what all of the evidence points to. Vox seems to have a knee-jerk assumption of the former.

Take it for what it's worth, but I've been reading Vox for years and while I think he's wrong on some points and he can be an ass, I haven't seen evidence that he's disingenuous, tries to hide what he actually believes or dodges honest debate. If anything, he intentionally exaggerates the relative extremism of his positions to generate traffic and bait people.

As an atheist, I obviously don't agree with him about intelligent design or creationism. However, I think he asks interesting questions about evolutionary theory. Even assuming he's wrong, science without skepticism might as well be masturbation. The fact that so many people are triggered by some blogger merely questioning evolutionary theory, climate change, etc. is evidence to me that these potential issues may not be getting the attention they should. After all, if the questions are easily answerable, there's no reason to get upset -- you just answer them or ignore them.

Vox obviously does have have an ideological axe. I do too. I assume you do. Rip certainly does. The difference is that most people in professions where ideology is frowned upon try to hide theirs or pretend it doesn't exist. I've known a number of scientists personally, but I couldn't name one without obvious biases. I think Vox's choice to simply proclaim his biases is a better model, myself.

The ultimate aim of science is discovering truth about our natural universe. This is done through examining observable data. When new data is discovered, it can be combined with the previous data to determine whether an existing hypothesis, theory, or understanding is still supportable.

The ultimate aim of a lawyer, by contrast, is to persuade a person or group of persons that his client's position is correct. This involves intentionally emphasizing some evidence (data), intentionally soft-pedaling or hand-waving other evidence, and creating a story that resonates with the decision-maker. As anyone who watches floor debates or watches Sunday political shows knows, politicians do the exact same thing--which isn't all that surprising given the undue emphasis on party loyalty, and that over half of the House and over a third of the Senate are lawyers.

That to me is the difference. There is a defined end goal of science--discovery of truth--that has nothing to do with the particular scientists involved. Politics and law don't share this same goal.

You raise interesting points, but you're not comparing like with like. The ultimate aim of "a scientist" is in general to put food on his table first and seek truth second. That's just how people are built, even assuming no bias by intention. Few scientists are willing to do work which seeks truth if it will not get grant money, create valuable patents or be published in a well-regarded journal. Unfortunately, the state of science as a community these days is driven primarily, in my experience, by credentialism, ideology and corporate interests.

I'm a layman here so correct me if I'm wrong about the following, but the ultimate aim of "law" is justice, in part by determining truth through the best means we have. The ultimate aim of "politics" is to select the the best leaders and pass the best laws. Both are flawed systems, but so is the current state of scientific advancement.

Further, science has a simple method of correction: examine the data and come up with another, better explanation. Scientist 1 may fudge data or have an implicitly biased view of the data, but Scientist 2 could point out the flaws in gathering that data, or could obtain other data and show that Scientist 1's conclusions are unreliable, or could do a meta-analysis to show that Scientist 1's conclusions are less reliable than alternative explanations, and the like. What is the analog of this in law or politics?

Unfortunately, this is more true in theory than in current practice. Peer review is a joke. Statistically speaking, replication isn't being practiced because:

1. Top journals will generally not publish research which tried and failed to replicate another scientists work because it doesn't make them any money or get them any press.
2. It's often hard to get grant money to do this research.
3. Scientists generally prefer to test their own hypotheses rather than recreate someone else's tests.
4. Scientists like to make money just like everyone else, so they want grant money, notoriety and publication in the best journals they can get.

As far as analogues in law and politics, off the top of my head: investigative journalism, ethics committees, appeals courts, recall elections and impeachment. They aren't perfect, sure, but neither are peer review and replication for the reasons above.

Simply saying "well, we're all subject to biases, therefore we can distrust everyone equally" is a cop-out. Are scientists flawed? Of course...human judgment is always subject to bias, even if unintentional. But most scientists, at least in my experience, try to follow the data and try to check their biases, because that's what they're supposed to do. Sometimes they fail, because they're human. There's a reason, however, why the hard sciences have made unprecedented progress in understanding the natural world and creating technology for human betterment--because, as a whole, scientists are data-driven, anyone can critique or correct anyone else based on the data, and the data is what determines the validity of a theory, not the persuasiveness of the particular individual who is offering the theory.

What progress in truth-seeking have politicians or lawyers come up with over the past four centuries? I ask this as a proud practicing lawyer.

Depending on perspective, I can think of several candidates: Most of the Bill of Rights and a few other amendments. The Scopes trial. Brown v. the Board of Education, insofar as it presumably creates more able truth-seekers. The internet.

[Tiedemies]

T
Unfortunately, this is more true in theory than in current practice. Peer review is a joke. Statistically speaking, replication isn't being practiced because:

1. Top journals will generally not publish research which tried and failed to replicate another scientists work because it doesn't make them any money or get them any press.
2. It's often hard to get grant money to do this research.
3. Scientists generally prefer to test their own hypotheses rather than recreate someone else's tests.
4. Scientists like to make money just like everyone else, so they want grant money, notoriety and publication in the best journals they can get.

1) Top journals will publish research that has tried and failed to replicate established work, provided that failure is credibly reported. By "credibly", it must meet criteria that are somewhat stricter than "reasonable doubt". Also, results that *do* replicate existing results have a very small chance of being published indeed. This means that replication experimentation is a high-risk endeavour that had very small chance of being "groundbreaking". It has very little to do with peer review, and much more about how science is being funded and how effort is being directed. I agree that this is a problem from the point of view of self-correcting.

A sidenote on this is that there is little or no money to be gained directly by a scientist from publishing. There are no royalties for authors in scientific publishing. The system is broken, but not because of peer review or the scientific community, it is broken by *copyright lawyers*. Scientists do not even have copyright for their own work, the publishing houses do.

2) The way Grant money is handed is broken terribly, this I agree with. Replication and refutation proposals have 0 probability of being funded. This is the result of (the wrong kind of) commercialization of science. Instead of looking for robust *facts*, grant committees and funding parties look for marketable novelties. Again, the scientific community at large views the system as broken and this process as cancerous to good science. Vox Day, along with many other people who criticize scientists tend to make this about the scientific "profession", but that is hogwash. Almost all scientists that I know of -- an a large proportion my friends are scientists of one persuasion or another -- have highly developed research ethics, which are then overridden by administrative "necessities".

3) Scientists generally prefer to keep their jobs and get funded in order to continue working on at least something of relevance. Replicative research is done as "comparative work", equipment and time permitting. Most of the researchers I know, would love nothing better than replicate other peoples' work so that they can compare with their own hypothesis. Lack of funding usually is the hurdle here.

4) Grant money is only indirectly a way of making money. Grant money makes it possible to hire and supervise junior scientists so that they can do what you don't have time to do. It is hard to get rich doing science. Tenured professors in top universities get an ok salary. Other senior faculty (such as myself) in mediocre universities make a mediocre living. Any amount of publication doesn't really matter in terms of making money, again, other than indirectly. If you are famous and work on some relevant field (some engineering field, economics etc), you may make a buck from consulting and, eventually, from sitting on boards of some companies, but this requires effort that has very little to do with publishing and science.

The self-corrective nature of science, however, is not really at risk in the long term even from these phenomena. In the end, bad science will go away, because it will not allow you to understand the world and make whatever it is that you are doing, work better, make better predictions etc.

The Starting Strength Method makes people stronger, as the article states. It works every time. And whenever they find changes to it that make people stronger in a better way (faster, with less effort, with longer term etc), they incorporate it in the method. This, I applaud. This is what scientists strive for in their own fields as well, but as the above list shows, it is an uphill battle at times. I don't see any reason to pit these things against each other, and I see no reason for the rapid anti-science sentiment present in Vox Day's argumentation.

The real problem that "dare not speak its name" is that everyone (including many scientists, of course) will reject truths that are self-evident, if they threaten their precious world-views in some way. This phenomenon has very little to do with political stance, but of course the particulars as to what kind of facts get thrown out depend on your views. Be that climatology, economics, ecology, medicine, biology, or even physics. All of these fields have some hard facts that are easily measured, and then there is some slight blur around the edges; when something in a person's worldview goes against the package, they will focus on the blur and then claim the whole thing is bullshit and carry on holding their beliefs, maybe write some online rants about corrupt scientists.

[Satch12879]

You really don’t have a more sophisticated argument than just to nitpick a minor issue with the process by which scientists solve problems, do you?

Obviously, I’m also done promoting Starting Strength.

As an engineer, trained in science, and a non-believer, I find you science fetishists really insufferable assholes.

[Brodie Butland]

Take it for what it's worth, but I've been reading Vox for years and while I think he's wrong on some points and he can be an ass, I haven't seen evidence that he's disingenuous, tries to hide what he actually believes or dodges honest debate. If anything, he intentionally exaggerates the relative extremism of his positions to generate traffic and bait people.

That may be true...and admittedly I don't follow him as closely as you, so you may have a better read on him.

As an atheist, I obviously don't agree with him about intelligent design or creationism. However, I think he asks interesting questions about evolutionary theory. Even assuming he's wrong, science without skepticism might as well be masturbation.

That's fine that he asks "interesting questions." But you know who else does? Actual scientists--and I find their questions far more interesting and intelligent than those that creationists ask...especially since creationists have a notoriously terrible grasp of actual science. (How many times do you hear creationists ask if someone believes in "Darwinism"?) There's still substantial debate in the scientific community over many aspects of evolutionary theory. One of my favorite evolutionary biologists, Stephen Jay Gould, developed and was a staunch proponent of "punctuated equilibrium." Many other well-regarded evolutionary biologists vehemently disagreed with him and developed alternative explanations. Richard Dawkins in particular was critical of the theory. All of them were doing the same thing--examining the evidence, and trying to determine how it all fit in together.

So I simply don't buy the notion that there's a "party line" that all scientists are trying to tow on the hard sciences. Scientists have accepted the basic premise of evolution because that's what all the evidence indicates. But the details are still being worked out, and likely will for some time. That's a good thing. That's how science is supposed to work.

The fact that so many people are triggered by some blogger merely questioning evolutionary theory, climate change, etc. is evidence to me that these potential issues may not be getting the attention they should. After all, if the questions are easily answerable, there's no reason to get upset -- you just answer them or ignore them.

I'm not triggered by it, but I do object to disingenuous questioning, and that's what most folks who contest the general principle of evolution do. An honest view of evolution would say that we've got the basics figured out compliments of a fossil record, taxonomy, and genetics (especially the incredible advances in examining genomes), but there are a lot of details that we're still trying to determine. Vox doesn't do this...rather, he asks "questions" (which, as I noted above, actual scientists have been doing and are still doing), and then maintains that because we can't answer those precise questions at this time, evolution is "pseudo-scientific fiction." Maybe it's a rhetorical point, but that doesn't make it any less disingenuous.

Vox obviously does have an ideological axe. I do too. I assume you do. Rip certainly does. The difference is that most people in professions where ideology is frowned upon try to hide theirs or pretend it doesn't exist. I've known a number of scientists personally, but I couldn't name one without obvious biases.

I've already agreed that everyone has biases. That doesn't necessarily mean that we must distrust everyone equally.

I'm a layman here so correct me if I'm wrong about the following, but the ultimate aim of "law" is justice, in part by determining truth through the best means we have.

That's the theory, yes. But here's the difference: there is no objectively correct definition of "justice." It's ultimately an arbitrary value proposition. Most of us here would say that it is "unjust" to own a human being. Aristotle believed in "justice," and is frequently quoted on the subject even in modern-day analyses, but he believed it was just to own slaves. And there are still large swaths of modern-day people that believe slavery is just.

And slavery is what most of us would call an "easy" question. What is the "just" sentence for someone who possesses 1kg of cocaine with intent to distribute? Is it "just" to require bussing to remedy school segregation? Is it "just" to allow gay people to marry? Are the penalties for copyright infringement "just"?

These questions cannot be answered without presupposing values, and values are not objectively true or untrue. There isn't a magic blueprint in the sky to determine how correct our view of justice is. Statements about nature, by contrast, are true or untrue. The earth revolves around the sun in an ellipse. Species have genetic changes between generations. Objects with mass attract each other. These are true statements because that's what actually happens.

The ultimate aim of "politics" is to select the the best leaders and pass the best laws. Both are flawed systems, but so is the current state of scientific advancement.

Again, what are "the best laws"? (Besides those that Donald Trump passes.) It's ultimately a subjective value proposition. Rip is a pure libertarian. I believe in a more active role for the state. We're going to have dramatically different views of what the "best laws" are in many instances, and we're going to have similar views of what the "best laws" are in many instances. In neither case can either of us point to something that shows our values underlying our base viewpoints are right or wrong. I can't look under a rock and find something showing that pure libertarianism is correct or not.

As far as analogues in law and politics, off the top of my head: investigative journalism, ethics committees, appeals courts, recall elections and impeachment. They aren't perfect, sure, but neither are peer review and replication for the reasons above

Depending on perspective, I can think of several candidates: Most of the Bill of Rights and a few other amendments. The Scopes trial. Brown v. the Board of Education, insofar as it presumably creates more able truth-seekers. The internet.

Again, apples and oranges. We can compare a scientific theory to reality and determine how closely they align...and the better we get at measuring and observing reality, the better we can test a scientific theory. We can't do that with law or politics because there's nothing objective to compare any given value to.

Let's use one of your examples--Brown v. Board of Education. The central premise of the case is that separate but equal is inherently unequal...even if a state could theoretically create completely identical schools for black and white children. And as a corollary (as seen in later cases), to the extent that state laws contributed to segregated schools even though they didn't explicitly require segregation (known as "de jure" segregation), the state must take prophylactic measures to fix the problem...which often involves complex bussing policies that require children to attend schools miles away from their homes. (Sidenote: Had Chief Justice Vinson not fortuitously kicked the bucket after Brown was originally argued, allowing Earl Warren to take over the new spot, Brown v. Board would almost certainly have come out 5-4 the other way, rather than 9-0.)

Now, which part of the "promises of Brown" are "just"? Do you believe that segregated schools should NEVER be permissible, even if funding, programming, teacher competence, and every other educational measure were identical between the schools? Do you believe that federal decrees requiring long-distance bussing of children between communities are a just result? And relatedly, do you believe that race-based school assignments as an attempt to prevent segregation from occurring in the first place is just?

For the record, my answers are yes, yes, and it depends. But many legal scholars disagree with me on all three questions. Even the "easiest" part of Brown--that separate but equal is inherently unequal--was disagreed with not only by then-clerk William Rehnquist, but today by some liberal scholars who believe that segregated schools (assuming equality of opportunity) would be beneficial to black children, who would have a more encouraging environment to learn. There is a substantial conservative legal movement that grudgingly accepts Brown v. Board, but has attacked federal decrees remedying segregation...and they were largely successful in the Rehnquist era. The Parents Involved in Community Schools decision--again, a product of the same conservative legal movement--completely gutted the ability of school districts to proactively prevent segregation resulting from demographic changes and zoning.

My point isn't to debate the merits or demerits of Brown or the issues directly flowing from it. My point is that it's not a good comparison to the development of science. All of these issues are ultimately policy- and value-driven where there is substantial disagreement as to the premises. They are really complicated issues, not just because they're hard to study, but because they necessarily involve subjective value judgments that don't have right or wrong answers without presupposing a value framework.

By contrast, we can test any permutations of evolutionary theory by looking at the fossil record and mapping various genomes across species. Gould's punctuated equilibrium, for example, has been the subject of much criticism and lauding by scientists based on objective evidence. At some point, we should be able to definitively determine if the theory is right or wrong, and we don't require a subjective value judgment to do so.

[tanis0]

That's fine that he asks "interesting questions." But you know who else does? Actual scientists

Good. But I don't understand the relevance. No one but credentialed scientists should question science?

I'm not triggered by it, but I do object to disingenuous questioning, and that's what most folks who contest the general principle of evolution do. An honest view of evolution would say that we've got the basics figured out compliments of a fossil record, taxonomy, and genetics (especially the incredible advances in examining genomes), but there are a lot of details that we're still trying to determine. Vox doesn't do this...rather, he asks "questions" (which, as I noted above, actual scientists have been doing and are still doing), and then maintains that because we can't answer those precise questions at this time, evolution is "pseudo-scientific fiction." Maybe it's a rhetorical point, but that doesn't make it any less disingenuous.

I'm not sure how what "most folks" do is relevant when we're discussing one individual with substantial writing on the subject. Beyond that, questions are questions. Motives are irrelevant here -- the question can either be answered or it cannot. Or if it's loaded, the assumption can be addressed and then any other parts of it can be answered separately. On Vox Day specifically, think if you read more of what he writes, you'll find that his problems with evolution are less with the theory (though he doesn't agree with it) and more with the fact that people treat it like a religion and refuse to admit that there are parts of it which are not well-understood.

I agree that what you lay out would be an honest view of evolution. My question to you is, why do evolutionary biologists seem so unwilling to take that position with Vox? Take speciation. It would be reasonable to answer Vox's questions on this topic with, "Yes, you are right that there is something here we don't fully understand, but here are the leading theories..." Or, "No, this is well-understood and it works like this: <insert specific example with well-backed numbers>." What's not reasonable is that people refuse to engage on the actual meat of the point. This is why I find his questions interesting -- because people do not seem willing to answer them directly. The guy constantly postures about how no one will debate him so if it's so easy, why doesn't someone show up and make him look silly? The only answer I see is that, for whatever reason, they will not publicly admit that there are parts of the theory which are not well-understood yet. I can only speculate about why they won't though. And again, to be clear, I think his overarching point is wrong.

That's the theory, yes. But here's the difference: there is no objectively correct definition of "justice." ... Statements about nature, by contrast, are true or untrue. The earth revolves around the sun in an ellipse. Species have genetic changes between generations. Objects with mass attract each other. These are true statements because that's what actually happens.

I think that one of us must be missing the other's point. To me, both are processes which seek truth. One is seeking an objective truth while the other seeks a subjective one, but I don't see how that's a substantive difference as it specifically relates to the trustworthiness of the truth-seekers. Is your argument that more honest people go into science than law in the first place? Or is it that the legal system somehow makes people more dishonest than does the current scientific climate? Or something else?

Again, what are "the best laws"? (Besides those that Donald Trump passes.) It's ultimately a subjective value proposition. Rip is a pure libertarian. I believe in a more active role for the state. We're going to have dramatically different views of what the "best laws" are in many instances, and we're going to have similar views of what the "best laws" are in many instances. In neither case can either of us point to something that shows our values underlying our base viewpoints are right or wrong. I can't look under a rock and find something showing that pure libertarianism is correct or not.

While Trump is, of course, passing all of the best laws, and you guys aren't going to believe how great they'll be.... In this context, "the best laws" are the set which would benefit the constituent unit most by some obviously subjective metrics, but again, I don't see how the subjectivity is relevant to our previous discussion.

Again, apples and oranges. We can compare a scientific theory to reality and determine how closely they align...and the better we get at measuring and observing reality, the better we can test a scientific theory. We can't do that with law or politics because there's nothing objective to compare any given value to.

Let's use one of your examples--Brown v. Board of Education...

Your specific question to me was:

What progress in truth-seeking have politicians or lawyers come up with over the past four centuries? I ask this as a proud practicing lawyer.

So are you arguing that none of the responses I gave you meet this criteria? The internet does not, in your opinion, advance truth-seeking in any way, from making it easier to research and share data to allowing people to educate themselves more fully?

If that's not your position, what are we talking about? I'm ok with it if you want to move the goalposts, but be specific about the new position and I'll answer again if I'm able.