For you science doer types, any thoughts on peer review? - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

landpoke · 07-01-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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.

I'm a bit in the dark about the whole process. Can it be, for lack of a better term, rigged? That is can you pack the board with sympathetic reviewers such that questionable conclusions, conclusions that fly in the face of the data, can be given a thumbs up?

I'm not down on peer review in the abstract and I'm sure it works as intended a majority of the time. I'm just frustrated by, as you state, "the stamp of infallibility."

landpoke · 07-01-2008, 02:10 PM

Follow-up question, am I correct in my understanding that peer review doesn't pass judgment on whether the conclusions reached are correct or not, but rather whether the correct methods were applied?

MikeWaters · 07-01-2008, 02:14 PM

Man oh man, how naive I am. I thought this was a thread about the peer review process.

And not a thread attacking global warming.

stupid me.

landpoke · 07-01-2008, 02:35 PM

No-no, no anti-global warming here. Good guess though.

MikeWaters · 07-01-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by landpoke

No-no, no anti-global warming here. Good guess though.

Polar bears.

landpoke · 07-01-2008, 02:45 PM

Sage Grouse. There is a study by a researcher out of Montana which states that sage grouse numbers in NE Wyoming have plummeted in recent years. This directly contradicts the published numbers of the Wyoming Game & Fish which show a pretty steep increase in the last couple of years. The Montana study was based on a survey of five leks (sage grouse strutting grounds) across an approximately 10,000 square mile area while the G&F numbers are based on surveys of upwards of 100 leks in the same area.

landpoke · 07-01-2008, 03:16 PM

I can see why it might appear like this was another global warming thread. Pokes' honor I hadn't read that thread before starting this one. As stated above my ire was raised by one sage grouse study.

MikeWaters · 07-01-2008, 03:20 PM

So the Game and Fish survey wasn't scientific?

landpoke · 07-01-2008, 04:21 PM

Game & Fish just puts out the data they collect from observations on the ground. They offer a few graphs so you can see trends, but they offer no conclusions.

SeattleUte · 07-01-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by landpoke

Game & Fish just puts out the data they collect from observations on the ground. They offer a few graphs so you can see trends, but they offer no conclusions.

I bet Wyoming Game & Fish regulators are wusses compared to Washington and Oregon ones. They're probably shills, of industry not environmentalists.

07-01-2008, 02:10 PM	#22
landpoke Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: North Central God's Country Posts: 1,534	Follow-up question, am I correct in my understanding that peer review doesn't pass judgment on whether the conclusions reached are correct or not, but rather whether the correct methods were applied? __________________ I see a hobo. And when I see the hobo, I think to myself, "This man is poor. His monetary value is low, and my monetary value is high, and it's a shame that he is himself. What can I do?"

07-01-2008, 02:35 PM	#24
landpoke Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: North Central God's Country Posts: 1,534	No-no, no anti-global warming here. Good guess though. __________________ I see a hobo. And when I see the hobo, I think to myself, "This man is poor. His monetary value is low, and my monetary value is high, and it's a shame that he is himself. What can I do?"

07-01-2008, 02:45 PM	#26
landpoke Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: North Central God's Country Posts: 1,534	Sage Grouse. There is a study by a researcher out of Montana which states that sage grouse numbers in NE Wyoming have plummeted in recent years. This directly contradicts the published numbers of the Wyoming Game & Fish which show a pretty steep increase in the last couple of years. The Montana study was based on a survey of five leks (sage grouse strutting grounds) across an approximately 10,000 square mile area while the G&F numbers are based on surveys of upwards of 100 leks in the same area. __________________ I see a hobo. And when I see the hobo, I think to myself, "This man is poor. His monetary value is low, and my monetary value is high, and it's a shame that he is himself. What can I do?"

07-01-2008, 03:16 PM	#27
landpoke Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: North Central God's Country Posts: 1,534	I can see why it might appear like this was another global warming thread. Pokes' honor I hadn't read that thread before starting this one. As stated above my ire was raised by one sage grouse study. __________________ I see a hobo. And when I see the hobo, I think to myself, "This man is poor. His monetary value is low, and my monetary value is high, and it's a shame that he is himself. What can I do?"

07-01-2008, 04:21 PM	#29
landpoke Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: North Central God's Country Posts: 1,534	Game & Fish just puts out the data they collect from observations on the ground. They offer a few graphs so you can see trends, but they offer no conclusions. __________________ I see a hobo. And when I see the hobo, I think to myself, "This man is poor. His monetary value is low, and my monetary value is high, and it's a shame that he is himself. What can I do?"

07-01-2008, 02:14 PM	#23
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Man oh man, how naive I am. I thought this was a thread about the peer review process. And not a thread attacking global warming. stupid me.

07-01-2008, 03:20 PM	#28
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	So the Game and Fish survey wasn't scientific?