|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 5, 2017 17:12:58 GMT
And the purpose of "peer-review" is.... What would be your alternative to a peer-review? Something really radical. Let people decide for themselves what the truth is.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 5, 2017 17:41:28 GMT
What would be your alternative to a peer-review? Something really radical. Let people decide for themselves what the truth is. Peer review doesn't in any way prevent people from deciding for themselves. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/giveup.gif) Why pretend otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 5, 2017 17:48:54 GMT
Something really radical. Let people decide for themselves what the truth is. Peer review doesn't in any way prevent people from deciding for themselves. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/giveup.gif) Why pretend otherwise? It certainly didn't for me, or for many others. So what the hell do you need it for? ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/giveup.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 5, 2017 17:51:51 GMT
![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif) It doesn't prevent anyone, anywhere, from making their own decisions, at any time. I betcha, if you dwell on it a bit, you'll stumble on some reasons why cross-checking accuracy in research would have advantages. Give it a shot.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 5, 2017 17:56:12 GMT
![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif) It doesn't prevent anyone, anywhere, from making their own decisions, at any time. I betcha, if you dwell on it a bit, you'll stumble on some reasons why cross-checking accuracy in research would have advantages. Give it a shot. How about this? I'll go on trying to wake people up from their stupor (and that's exactly what it is), and you go on with your ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif) . Yeah, how about that? And we'll just see how it turns out in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 5, 2017 18:22:27 GMT
How is pretending peer review "prevents one's own decision making" waking anyone up from a "stupor"? You may as well gripe about book editors. It's all about catching errors before they're published. Never heard anyone take issue with that notion before.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jun 5, 2017 19:16:52 GMT
Peer review doesn't in any way prevent people from deciding for themselves. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/giveup.gif) Why pretend otherwise? It certainly didn't for me, or for many others. So what the hell do you need it for? ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/giveup.gif) It's for us stupid scientist, so we we know what to think. Saves attending too many conspiracy meetings.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jun 5, 2017 20:02:33 GMT
What would be your alternative to a peer-review? Something really radical. Let people decide for themselves what the truth is. People can already decide for themselves what they think the truth is. That doesn't necessarily tell people what the truth actually is. I think I'll rely on a committee of legitimate scientists (in their field) to poke holes in an author's so-called conclusions. Otherwise, anyone would be able to post anything on any subject and call it true.......Then, you'll have my neighbor (who thinks Martians kidnapped his cat) believing all sorts of things are true.....kind of how most mis-information is propagated on the Internet. Are you really advocating a free-for-all of good/bad information and let the "buyer" beware?
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 5, 2017 20:56:00 GMT
Something really radical. Let people decide for themselves what the truth is. People can already decide for themselves what they think the truth is. That doesn't necessarily tell people what the truth actually is. I think I'll rely on a committee of legitimate scientists (in their field) to poke holes in an author's so-called conclusions. Otherwise, anyone would be able to post anything on any subject and call it true.......Then, you'll have my neighbor (who thinks Martians kidnapped his cat) believing all sorts of things are true.....kind of how most mis-information is propagated on the Internet. Are you really advocating a free-for-all of good/bad information and let the "buyer" beware? If you can successfully denigrate the value of study and research, then any source or opinion is as valid as any other. For example, a YouTube video thrown together with stock imagery in 20 minutes becomes as valid a citation as a twenty year field study. That's what the US shift towards anti-intellectualism is all about: elevating ignorance to the same level of value as an education. That's why we're not seeing any specific negatives about peer review here (beyond the strange implication that it keeps "someone" from making their own decisions; exactly who remains a mystery). It's not so much about any flaws in reviewing research prior to publishing, it's more about undermining the value of research in general.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 21:05:06 GMT
People can already decide for themselves what they think the truth is. That doesn't necessarily tell people what the truth actually is. I think I'll rely on a committee of legitimate scientists (in their field) to poke holes in an author's so-called conclusions. Otherwise, anyone would be able to post anything on any subject and call it true.......Then, you'll have my neighbor (who thinks Martians kidnapped his cat) believing all sorts of things are true.....kind of how most mis-information is propagated on the Internet. Are you really advocating a free-for-all of good/bad information and let the "buyer" beware? If you can successfully denigrate the value of study and research, then any source or opinion is as valid as any other. For example, a YouTube video thrown together with stock imagery in 20 minutes becomes as valid a citation as a twenty year field study. That's what the US shift towards anti-intellectualism is all about: elevating ignorance to the same level of value as an education. That's why we're not seeing any specific negatives about peer review here (beyond the strange implication that it keeps "someone" from making their own decisions; exactly who remains a mystery). It's not so much about any flaws in reviewing research prior to publishing, it's more about undermining the value of research in general. Fact checking and accuracy are kryptonite to Erjen and his ilk.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 5, 2017 21:13:29 GMT
If you can successfully denigrate the value of study and research, then any source or opinion is as valid as any other. For example, a YouTube video thrown together with stock imagery in 20 minutes becomes as valid a citation as a twenty year field study. That's what the US shift towards anti-intellectualism is all about: elevating ignorance to the same level of value as an education. That's why we're not seeing any specific negatives about peer review here (beyond the strange implication that it keeps "someone" from making their own decisions; exactly who remains a mystery). It's not so much about any flaws in reviewing research prior to publishing, it's more about undermining the value of research in general. Fact checking and accuracy are kryptonite to Erjen and his ilk. "Facts"? He's still "collating" on whether the earth is round or not - a notion many third graders have answered on their own via simple at-home projects. There are no "facts"! There is only... COLLATION! Edit: (Then again I recently discovered he doesn't think he has his own thoughts, but instead is "programmed" what to think.... soooooo... maybe someone just programmed him into a never-ending collation loop.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 21:27:03 GMT
Fact checking and accuracy are kryptonite to Erjen and his ilk. "Facts"? He's still "collating" on whether the earth is round or not - a notion many third graders have answered on their own via simple at-home projects. There are no "facts"! There is only... COLLATION! You were spot on about the rise of anti intellectualism in America. Donald Trump was the logical outcome to such a rise. We now have a situation where lies are called facts, unqualified idiots whos only qualification is an internet connection and camera are able to pontificate on subjects as if they're experts. Idiocy is the new currency of the right and the appointment of Betty Devos is intended to perpetuate this for future generations. If they can spit out another generation of poorly educated Erjen's then their ability to continue to enrich themselves at the expense of others is assured.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 6, 2017 1:05:42 GMT
What would be your alternative to a peer-review? Something really radical. Let people decide for themselves what the truth is. Are you serious??? Scientist: I have just discovered the cure for cancer, it has gone through three double blind tests and is fully peer reviewed out of 15 different universities. Erjen: no. You have to be trolling.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 6, 2017 8:41:44 GMT
Medical decisions are not matters of majority opinion and no count of heads, or peers, or anything else matters. No "authority" is empowered except as patients proscribe. Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but here in the modern UK medical decisions are based on what is, de facto , a consensus of experts, often after years of research EG that exercise and a good diet is best for one, high blood pressure or sugar levels are bad for one and ought to be reduced, asprin once a day can help reduce heart problems, and so on. Patients do not decide on which medical authority they rely on in anything like the way you describe, even if it was possible but merely which representative they frequent. Of course there are always some who prefer altogether alternative medicine or are Christian Scientists or whatever, but these are normally in the minority. Is this like you arguing with dictionaries all over again? I am naturally pleased that you think you know more than medical experts. In regards to your own treatment this is of course your privilege to act as you wish. I believe snake oil cures pattern baldness. That is very kind of you. In the case of the most common ailments and conditions one imagines a medical person would be able to explain and how things might be addressed. Asking a practitioner to justify his or herself though on every occasion could just make you seem impertinent. This will of course depend on the treatment and illness, and there is nothing wrong with second opinions for the most complex or devastating cases. Fine but this disputation is all about value of peer-reviewed science ultimately providing exactly that sort of qualification to make a professional judgement in technical areas (such as medicine). An unqualified populace (or one which thinks it knows best) is the thing which can lead to poor decisions, and so here I am pleased you agree with me. Witness the growth of homeopathy for instance, a pseudo science which people think has real effect but with no substantiation behind it.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 7, 2017 8:21:29 GMT
I'm still baffled as to how the peer review of voluntarily submitted research papers prevents anyone from "making up their own mind". ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) And how does this relate to "waking people up from their stupor"?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 7, 2017 8:31:35 GMT
I'm still baffled as to how the peer review of voluntarily submitted research papers prevents anyone from "making up their own mind". ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) And how does this relate to "waking people up from their stupor"? It's not baffling, unless you're a drooling moron. The job of the mainstream media, as admitted by Mika Brzezinski on The Today Show recently, is to control what people think, and for years they've been doing rather well at it, due in no small part to the "peer review" process of what passes for science now. Manmade "global warming" is an outstanding example. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 7, 2017 8:40:08 GMT
A couple of questions:
1) What constitutes "mainstream" for you? What are the reliable media outlets in your view? 2) If we presuppose that "mainstream media is out to control people", then how is the peer review process, as it applies to papers submitted to various panels prior to publication, contributing to that control? "Media" only rarely presents the humdrum contents of journals as news outside of pop-sci stuff like the LHC firing. Well over 90% of these submissions are things like analyses of sediment layers in river basins or the discovery of a new fart-beetle in the Amazon. 3) How exactly are even the worst and most blatantly biased news outlets "controlling what you think"? Are you not capable of vetting their claims? Questioning their veracity? Don't you and you alone *decide* what is worth thinking out of everything you peruse?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 7, 2017 8:54:43 GMT
1) I look at them all with some degree of skepticism. When one of them gets caught spreading falsehood, their credibility takes a dive, especially when they try to cover it with more lies. 2) Already explained. Because they're like.....scientists, man. They know stuff.....and junk, and if they all agree with each other then they must be right, or else the mainstream media wouldn't be presenting it as "fact." 3) They don't control what I think. They control what the populace thinks. And the ones like me who don't think that way have various labels applied to them by Internet talking heads. I shouldn't have to repeat them to you. "Anti-intellectual" is one of your favorites.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 7, 2017 9:00:14 GMT
1) I look at them all with some degree of skepticism. When one of them gets caught spreading falsehood, their credibility takes a dive, especially when they try to cover it with more lies. 2) Already explained. Because they're like.....scientists, man. They know stuff.....and junk, and if they all agree with each other then they must be right, or else the mainstream media wouldn't be presenting it as "fact." 3) They don't control what I think. They control what the populace thinks. And the ones like me who don't think that way have various labels applied to them by Internet talking heads. I shouldn't have to repeat them to you. "Anti-intellectual" is one of your favorites. 1) OK then are there *ANY* reliable outlets in your view? 2) So not only every scientist who submits a journal for review, but every scientist assigned to review, is part of an arranged message? 3) So they control what *most* (the populace) thinks, but not you (and those "like you")? Is that the deal? Would you say the farmer's almanac controls what its readers think?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 7, 2017 9:07:14 GMT
1) I look at them all with some degree of skepticism. When one of them gets caught spreading falsehood, their credibility takes a dive, especially when they try to cover it with more lies. 2) Already explained. Because they're like.....scientists, man. They know stuff.....and junk, and if they all agree with each other then they must be right, or else the mainstream media wouldn't be presenting it as "fact." 3) They don't control what I think. They control what the populace thinks. And the ones like me who don't think that way have various labels applied to them by Internet talking heads. I shouldn't have to repeat them to you. "Anti-intellectual" is one of your favorites. 1) OK then are there *ANY* reliable outlets in your view? 2) So not only every scientist who submits a journal for review, but every scientist assigned to review, is part of an arranged message? 3) So they control what *most* (the populace) thinks, but not you (and those "like you")? Is that the deal? Would you say the farmer's almanac controls what its readers think? 1) Already answered. 2) I don't know about all, but enough. 97% is a number that comes to mind. 3) Yes. And no, I would not say that Farmer's Almanac controls what its readers think.
|
|