It includes this quote from Bart Carpolo
“Science can’t proceed unless people agree to be honest with each other about their results. Everything has to be verifiable. When people lie about their results, it slows down the whole process. Science is a conversation and this conversation can only go forward if we agree to these ground rules. In the same way, collective governance, the social contract, social cooperation can only really do well if we agree to have the conversation where we all use the same facts. If we are going to live together, have a community, large or small, we’ve gotta agree to some rules of conversation. The first of those is everybody’s gotta tell the truth about physical things, money that can be accounted for, etc. Without that, we can’t make any decisions, we can’t even argue.”
Can’t find much problem with that
You meant Bart Campolo - who clearly doesn’t understand science or scientists. Perhaps he just failed to verify - the first bullet of the pledge. Maybe you can let him know and then see if he is willing to retract - another bullet item.
Scientists aren’t some breed of super-ethical beings who are honest to protect their calling - as organizations like Retraction Watch (http://retractionwatch.com) demonstrate. Fraudsters can, and do appear in science and with many profiting from the grey area between science and pseudoscience. Science and scientific tradition has succeeded because the scientific community places a great deal of importance upon third-party verifiability and repeatability. Peer review before publication has been a longtime tradition. Some argue that it isn’t the answer (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/) but it must be a disincentive to flagrant fraudsters. It has been somewhat undermined by what has become known as Predatory Publication in some journals (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315198/). Media attention often focuses on new findings that have been peer-reviewed and published but have not been repeated by other labs. An essential part of the scientific process that is too slow to be acceptable in media circles looking for an exclusive or first-to-the-post story that will gain them attention (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science). They are reporting half-verified science.
The bottom line is that scientists (and many individuals in other disciplines) are held to a standard of honesty by their peers who collectively have an interest in honesty. Dishonesty is identified and perpetrators often lose their jobs and certainly credibility. If you want to change the basis of ” collective governance, the social contract, social cooperation”, the focus needs to be on formalizing a process to ensure honesty and this isn’t going to be done by taking any pledge. A pledge is just another contortion that can be used by dishonest people to give the impression that “they took the pledge, so what they say must be true.”
A related issue would be to reintroduce the notion of scepticism as a part of a school curriculum to provide people with better skills to recognize questionable honesty. I’m not sure this would go down too well since it may well reduce the effectiveness of propaganda and marketing.
all I did was add a space