For you science doer types, any thoughts on peer review? - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 06-30-2008, 10:07 PM

peer review is like a jury.

SeattleUte · 06-30-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I have faith that science, collectively, gets things right over time though they may err in the short term. Kind of like how I feel about the brethren.

Worst post ever? Could be.

myboynoah · 06-30-2008, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

peer review is like a jury.

Then I would vote guilty everytime.

UtahDan · 07-01-2008, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Worst post ever? Could be.

If you mean that you think my comedic timing is off, then okay. Otherwise, what?

SeattleUte · 07-01-2008, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

If you mean that you think my comedic timing is off, then okay. Otherwise, what?

I think you just stated the obvious about science, and you made a very inapt comparison. If science ever made a claim to have gotten everything right and arrived at all the answers it would cease to be science. It would have transmogrified into religion. It kills me how people around here (tooblue the worst offender) think that science needs to apologize for getting things wrong, and that this somehow exculpates religions' ridiculous misaprehentions and misdeeds. Getting things wrong is to science what the downfield pass is to football--not the incomplete pass, the pass itself, mind you.

UtahDan · 07-01-2008, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think you just stated the obvious about science, and you made a very inapt comparison. If science ever made a claim to have gotten everything right and arrived at all the answers it would cease to be science. It would have transmogrified into religion. It kills me how people around here (tooblue the worst offender) think that science needs to apologize for getting things wrong, and that this somehow exculpates religions' ridiculous misaprehentions and misdeeds. Getting things wrong is to science what the downfield pass is to football--not the incomplete pass, the pass itself, mind you.

Oh good, you didn't miss the irony.

SeattleUte · 07-01-2008, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Oh good, you didn't miss the irony.

Glad to hear you were being ironic.

Jeff Lebowski · 07-01-2008, 06:14 AM

The peer review process is not perfect but it nowhere near as bankrupt or biased as Mr. Horton portrays. I have heard people use that same rhetoric to attack science in general. It is nonsense. But the peer review process is a process and one should never draw broad conclusions based on anecdotal cases. Sometimes crappy papers get published (frequently) and sometimes good papers get rejected (rarely). Truly visionary and groundbreaking papers not only get published, but they typically win lots of awards.

Statements like Mr. Horton's are generally made by people engaging in quasi-science (creationism or homeopathy, for example) or by crappy researchers who are on the verge of being denied tenure and just can't face the cold hard reality that maybe they just don't have it.

MikeWaters · 07-01-2008, 12:25 PM

It's almost impossilble for a non -terrible paper to not get published.

It's just that it will be published in a crappy journal.

Jeff Lebowski · 07-01-2008, 01:49 PM

Just to clarify, landpoke: while I don't agree with the quote you posted, feel free to question an individual paper. Passing the peer-review process certainly doesn't give any paper the stamp of infallibility.

07-01-2008, 06:14 AM	#18
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	The peer review process is not perfect but it nowhere near as bankrupt or biased as Mr. Horton portrays. I have heard people use that same rhetoric to attack science in general. It is nonsense. But the peer review process is a process and one should never draw broad conclusions based on anecdotal cases. Sometimes crappy papers get published (frequently) and sometimes good papers get rejected (rarely). Truly visionary and groundbreaking papers not only get published, but they typically win lots of awards. Statements like Mr. Horton's are generally made by people engaging in quasi-science (creationism or homeopathy, for example) or by crappy researchers who are on the verge of being denied tenure and just can't face the cold hard reality that maybe they just don't have it. __________________ "... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.

07-01-2008, 01:49 PM	#20
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	Just to clarify, landpoke: while I don't agree with the quote you posted, feel free to question an individual paper. Passing the peer-review process certainly doesn't give any paper the stamp of infallibility. __________________ "... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.

06-30-2008, 10:07 PM	#11
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	peer review is like a jury.

07-01-2008, 12:25 PM	#19
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	It's almost impossilble for a non -terrible paper to not get published. It's just that it will be published in a crappy journal.