Peer Review is Hairy ******* and Mudcrabs...
Discussion
...according to one Nobel Laureate. OK, I did paraphrase his opinion a little, but then there's this...
Much as I hate to cite Fox News, if what they say is only 10% correct, it does call into question all the modern politically correct "science" that builds its credibility upon such a foundation and that we must believe in order to be compassionate and socially acceptable these days.
Much as I hate to cite Fox News, if what they say is only 10% correct, it does call into question all the modern politically correct "science" that builds its credibility upon such a foundation and that we must believe in order to be compassionate and socially acceptable these days.
Edited by AER on Wednesday 5th March 02:00
Derek Smith said:
Or it could be that he's just had one of his pet theories kicked into touch.
...or had funding turned down for his latest wheeze.There are an awful lot of bitter no longer funded scientists online who use their glory days or an impressive sounding job "ex {insert impressive cv item here}" to make it sound like they are still worth listening to on their latest pet rant.
Engineer1 said:
Peer Review can be an issue if something is so far out from the current thinking that it seems unbelievable, but it is certainly a better method for checking the science than just publishing it.
I suspect, like the peers reviewing, you didn't actually read any of the links I posted before opining...The last rant i read about how established journals like nature were biasing publication towards "names" in the industry rather than the science was written by a "name" in the industry who had conveniently launched his own online alternative to Nature just months before. He was also a nobel laureate.mi wonder if it's the same chap?
As a bonus, just in case you've listened to the normal press enough to believe that "scientists" can be tarredwith a brush in the same way bankers seemingly can - noone takes a paper and assumes it's gospel. Papers aid research, they do not define truth.
As a bonus, just in case you've listened to the normal press enough to believe that "scientists" can be tarredwith a brush in the same way bankers seemingly can - noone takes a paper and assumes it's gospel. Papers aid research, they do not define truth.
mybrainhurts said:
Some Gump said:
noone takes a paper and assumes it's gospel. Papers aid research, they do not define truth.
[cough] Climate science [/cough]Engineer1 said:
mybrainhurts said:
Some Gump said:
noone takes a paper and assumes it's gospel. Papers aid research, they do not define truth.
[cough] Climate science [/cough]
mybrainhurts said:
Are you referring to climate scientists? They've abandoned science for the lucrative gravy train.
I keep hearing about this climate scientist gravy train - I've yet to see any evidence of it.A senior research scientist http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Senior_Res... hardly seems to be in the top 1% of earners even if you assume climate scientists earn the top whack.
If their is a climate science gravy train is amongst the various PR hacks, consultants and solar panel sales men not to mention their tame politicians.
I find it a bit strange that some people think that "peer review" is important.
Science stands or falls based on observations of reality.
Newton's "theories" became "laws" when 150 years passed without any evidence that contradicted his "theories". Everybody agreed that they would never be proved wrong... then along came Einstein!
Neither Einstein, nor Newton were peer reviewed.
As stated in the original article, peer review achieves nothing. It only defends the current concensus - which has been wrong for the past 30,000 generations of scientists.
Science stands or falls based on observations of reality.
Newton's "theories" became "laws" when 150 years passed without any evidence that contradicted his "theories". Everybody agreed that they would never be proved wrong... then along came Einstein!
Neither Einstein, nor Newton were peer reviewed.
As stated in the original article, peer review achieves nothing. It only defends the current concensus - which has been wrong for the past 30,000 generations of scientists.
don4l said:
I find it a bit strange that some people think that "peer review" is important.
Science stands or falls based on observations of reality.
Newton's "theories" became "laws" when 150 years passed without any evidence that contradicted his "theories". Everybody agreed that they would never be proved wrong... then along came Einstein!
Neither Einstein, nor Newton were peer reviewed.
As stated in the original article, peer review achieves nothing. It only defends the current concensus - which has been wrong for the past 30,000 generations of scientists.
The world is rather different to that when Darwin and Einstein were alive.Science stands or falls based on observations of reality.
Newton's "theories" became "laws" when 150 years passed without any evidence that contradicted his "theories". Everybody agreed that they would never be proved wrong... then along came Einstein!
Neither Einstein, nor Newton were peer reviewed.
As stated in the original article, peer review achieves nothing. It only defends the current concensus - which has been wrong for the past 30,000 generations of scientists.
Also, they were theoretical rather than experimental scientists, so they weren't saying "we should do this now as I have proven it" which is what would happen these days when some "entrepreneur" or politician got hold of some dodgy science. There's plenty of short-term fortunes to be made on the back of dodgy science if you spin it properly, this and the amount of other damage could be huge if we were to wait years for refutation or proof.
"Defending the current consensus" isn't actually all what peer review does, though is this a bad thing in the absence of complete proof? What peer review does is force the charlatans and the sloppy to get their act sorted or stop trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. The alternative would be dodgy crack-pot ideas all vying for market share, a bit like the world before the advent of what we now call science.
t"Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff