The emperor's new clothes

bewildered by my first reading of Hans Christian Anderson's 'The Emperor's New Clothes'. It was a story book with pictures, and the emperor was drawn prancing down the street in underclothes befitting the Victorian era (I was amused to discover that in today's versions he is depicted stark naked). I was disappointed with the end of the tale, not being old enough for what is, in effect, a story for adults. As a child I did not understand either the courtiers' or the emperor's reluctance to admit they saw no fabric for fear of being termed stupid or unfit for their jobs. You will recall that the 'magic cloth' that is the source of the weavers' scam is supposed to be visible only to those who are worthy of their positions. As an adult I have new respect for the potency of that invisible magic cloth, as I witness daily, in myself and others, the reluctance to speak. In Anderson's story, the emperor and courtiers were silent because they feared being revealed as stupid or incompetent. Scientists often do not challenge data with which they might not agree, or conclusions that are perhaps overblown or overstated for these and other reasons. Of course we do not wish to be seen as foolish. But more importantly, we remember with self-conscious humility the many times we have been wrong in our assessment of work, either our own or others. We are acutely aware of how little we know, and that our ignorance might be leading us astray. We also wish to avoid being vindictive, bitter, petty, or nasty (or at least not to appear as such). Thus the temptations that lead to silence are ironically the traps made of our better natures. All my years of reading fairy tales taught me that the traps created by the battles between two goods are far more ensnaring than those resulting from the battle between the forces of good and evil. What then is the proper mode of conduct for a scientist faced with findings that are draped in the velvet and ribbons associated with the journals that make our kings and queens but that seem little more than restatements of the obvious? What is the proper mode of conduct at seminars when the speaker makes comments that are either specious or silly? How honestly should one articulate one's private judgments about the 'significance' of …