|
Post by Cody™ on May 9, 2019 9:28:07 GMT
Some estimate that up to 400,000 papers that end up in scientific journals are not really peer reviewed.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 9, 2019 17:03:18 GMT
Since you have given no thoughts of your own about this article, I have to wonder why you posted it at all? It clearly is on the wrong board as it has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Why not post this on a board about science and technical matters?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 9, 2019 17:23:35 GMT
Since you have given no thoughts of your own about this article, I have to wonder why you posted it at all? It clearly is on the wrong board as it has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Why not post this on a board about science and technical matters? Clearly? No, I don't think so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2019 17:24:58 GMT
Since you have given no thoughts of your own about this article, I have to wonder why you posted it at all? It clearly is on the wrong board as it has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Why not post this on a board about science and technical matters? He's under the mistaken impression that casting doubt on science shores up religion.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 9, 2019 17:27:47 GMT
Since you have given no thoughts of your own about this article, I have to wonder why you posted it at all? It clearly is on the wrong board as it has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Why not post this on a board about science and technical matters? Clearly? No, I don't think so. So this is now a science board? I don't think so. Unless an attempt is made to tie in religion this does not belong on this board.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 9, 2019 17:30:04 GMT
Since you have given no thoughts of your own about this article, I have to wonder why you posted it at all? It clearly is on the wrong board as it has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Why not post this on a board about science and technical matters? He's under the mistaken impression that casting doubt on science shores up religion. He appears to even lack the honesty to make sure case for that...which might be just as well as he would fail miserably at such an attempt.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 9, 2019 17:31:17 GMT
Clearly? No, I don't think so. So this is now a science board? I don't think so. Unless an attempt is made to tie in religion this does not belong on this board. Then we'll have to agree to disagree, sir.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 9, 2019 17:55:43 GMT
So this is now a science board? I don't think so. Unless an attempt is made to tie in religion this does not belong on this board. Then we'll have to agree to disagree, sir. I guess.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 9, 2019 17:57:04 GMT
I'd guess the Sokal affair made them more attentive. Just to spare people the embarrassment otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 9, 2019 18:04:01 GMT
Since you have given no thoughts of your own about this article, I have to wonder why you posted it at all? It clearly is on the wrong board as it has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Why not post this on a board about science and technical matters? A) To elicit discussion on a interesting topic. B) Because I care more for the opinions of the posters on this here board whom I’m familiar with.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 9, 2019 18:09:53 GMT
Clearly? No, I don't think so. So this is now a science board? I don't think so. Unless an attempt is made to tie in religion this does not belong on this board. Yeah because OT threads are a real rarity around here...
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 9, 2019 20:22:20 GMT
Since you have given no thoughts of your own about this article, I have to wonder why you posted it at all? It clearly is on the wrong board as it has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Why not post this on a board about science and technical matters? A) To elicit discussion on a interesting topic. B) Because I care more for the opinions of the posters on this here board whom I’m familiar with. So post it on a more proper board. If you really wish to elicit discussion you might offer your own thoughts about the subject. That is the intellectually honest thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 9, 2019 22:10:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 9, 2019 22:15:47 GMT
Since you have given no thoughts of your own about this article, I have to wonder why you posted it at all? It clearly is on the wrong board as it has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Why not post this on a board about science and technical matters? It does however have a little to do with faith let’s be honest.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 10, 2019 1:44:46 GMT
Since you have given no thoughts of your own about this article, I have to wonder why you posted it at all? It clearly is on the wrong board as it has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Why not post this on a board about science and technical matters? A) To elicit discussion on a interesting topic. B) Because I care more for the opinions of the posters on this here board whom I’m familiar with. Gee, I am beyond flattered. My discussion points are that you have no idea what you are talking about, have probably scoured the internet to find something that agrees with your own personal anti-intellectualism, stupidity and low intelligence and you are once again pushing a really biased far right intellectually bankrupt illogical and unfounded agenda.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 10, 2019 1:56:49 GMT
Some estimate that up to 400,000 papers that end up in scientific journals are not really peer reviewed. When is someone going to write a paper on the number of crapola YouTube videos posted on those same topics? There is bad science. It is important to check your sources, and intelligent people actually do this. It is a bit like buying something on Ebay in that it tends to be self limiting. IF you buy from a regular seller with a high reliability ratio based on past events, you have some assurance that the quality is good, the price is right and their service is good. Within categories of scientific endeavour there are checks and balances in the same way. Reputation is everything to a scientists amongst their peers and in the academic world in general. There are 'cowboys' in every sphere of human endeavour.. just look at the religious zealots terrorists and out of touch fundies like yourself!
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 10, 2019 7:27:47 GMT
I have repeatedly pointed out off-topic threads in the past by multiple people. Just ask a resident poet if this is not the case. Yes, those threads are off-topic and shouldn't be here. However, you seemed to specifically been attacking science...but without the honesty to make a case. Your threads were at the top as well so I commented upon them. In addition I worked as a scientist for decades, and have published in a technical journal having gone through a peer review process. I also saw changes in journals through time. I already posted how one of your posted articles is hogwash. I didn't give my thoughts on the other because you had not. So, why don't you post your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 10, 2019 7:30:02 GMT
Since you have given no thoughts of your own about this article, I have to wonder why you posted it at all? It clearly is on the wrong board as it has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. Why not post this on a board about science and technical matters? It does however have a little to do with faith let’s be honest. No, it does not.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 10, 2019 8:00:44 GMT
I have repeatedly pointed out off-topic threads in the past by multiple people. Just ask a resident poet if this is not the case. Yes, those threads are off-topic and shouldn't be here. However, you seemed to specifically been attacking science...but without the honesty to make a case. Your threads were at the top as well so I commented upon them. In addition I worked as a scientist for decades, and have published in a technical journal having gone through a peer review process. I also saw changes in journals through time. I already posted how one of your posted articles is hogwash. I didn't give my thoughts on the other because you had not. So, why don't you post your thoughts? I knew it was more than just about OT threads LOL. So basically in other words you only object to OT threads that you don’t like. Well tough fucking shit, no one cares. Either be consistent or be quiet. Sorry but it is what it is, pal. Apologies to bring attention to and expose the sham that a lot of science is nowadays. “Facts” that cannot be repeated, 400,000 papers ending up in journals that aren’t even peer reviewed. Science needs a major shake up.
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on May 10, 2019 12:00:40 GMT
I'll list some personal anecdotes regarding peer review, a subject with which I have some involvement of a peripheral nature. Ten or so years ago I was asked to help some Thai graduate students trying to comprehend an exceptionally dull English language thesis about city planning. There were quite many idiomatic phrases in the document that baffled the Thai students. The one I best remember was "on the other hand," which is easily understood by English speakers to mean "an alternative policy." The author of the paper used the word "primate" to be another form of "primary," something I'd never do but maybe that 's how US professors use that word. The document under consideration was endlessly tedious from my point of view (another idiom) and it was repetitious junk filled with buzzwords. That's my opinion and it may have been a worthwhile document but it seemed to be a waste of space.
In another case I was asked to correct the grammar of an English language doctoral thesis (about blood distribution in rural localities) written by a Thai woman studying in England. It wasn't as boring as the earlier thesis but it was slow-going for me and I had to make lots of corrections. She finally got her doctorate but I was advised that what she had written was sub-par for a doctoral thesis. I don't know that to be a fact but maybe it's so, maybe it isn't.
A third case involved a dispute about mathematics. That's not a subject that should generate much debate but no one had reckoned on a certain James Harris who had endless comments in the sci.math discussion group on Usenet. James had apparently devised a process he called surrogate factoring where integers of several hundred digits could be examined to see if they were prime numbers or if they could be factored into smaller numbers. James used some easily factored number (say it was an even number as determined by the final digit) that was larger than the original number. Doing something or other James claimed to be able to determine if any large number was prime or not.
James respondents in sci.math said he was full of shit and that he made no sense. He was not the math genius he thought he was but was instead a moron with no real ability. But James Harris proved his detractors wrong by getting published in an on-line peer-reviewed mathematical journal out of Oklahoma. James was very proud of his accomplishment.
James hadn't become smart overnight. Instead, the grad student (or whoever) assigned to review the paper had better things to do with his own time and figured it was easier to simply post online the crap from Harris. The reviewer may have thought that here's an inscrutable paper in an obscure online journal that no one's ever heard of. What's the problem? Who'll know? Well, James Harris knew, he boasted of his triumph, and soon lots of people knew. The Oklahoma journal quickly rescinded the James Harris thesis and soon ceased operating.
This all illustrates that peer review is far from perfect. Many submissions are badly written and/or have trivial content. A very tiny minority have deliberate falsehoods in them, fake data. The scientific peer review system inevitably discovers if a particular thesis is erroneous or fraudulent. With religion it's different. There, people can write all kinds of shit and their ability and integrity are never questioned.
|
|