 |
| So that I cannot be accused of weasely appropriating images on the internet, you could potentially consider buying this |
Take this Science Alert article: Quantum Batteries Could Provide a New Kind of Energy Storage by Messing With Time. This is a prime example of readings that have the only effect of turning me off.
The `could,` `would,` `mays,` `potentially,` and `in principle` do not belong to the scientific parlance.
But this is OK, one might object; this is not the science; it is just pop science!
And yet, digging deeper into the actual hard-science articles, one finds the exact weasel words and, mind you, not under a dedicated `Speculations` header, but throughout Methods, Materials, and Conclusions. This is unacceptable and a huge issue that serious (ahah) Journal Editors should crack down upon.
I want to share an interesting opinion article that illustrates my point more eloquently than I could ever do: Hedging, Weasel Words, and Truthiness in Scientific Writing, by Dr. D.E. Ott.
By the way, it is OK to speculate. Had we never had Jules Verne write on getting to the moon, we would have probably never planted a flag (ahi, more speculation!). Imagination (as individuals and as a society) is progress's most potent driving force. I cheer anyone with the bravery and moral fortitude to move the goalpost farther than anyone else could reach.
But I decry in the strongest terms any attempts at swaying economic interests. under the pretenses of potential science.
Let's go back to real accountability.
Do you, the researcher, or their scientific institution have a speculation you would like to propose? OK, put your reputation (your only real currency) on the line and tell us about timelines, stepping stones, investments, risks, and mitigations. We will believe you because we, as a society, will hold you accountable to those. If your predictions hold water, we will give you more research money.
But if your predictions are just vague speculations based on weasel words and aggressive PR push, good luck!
