Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: General Discussions (Read 1394241 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2475 –
Reading the stories about the eBikes invading Sydney Harbour Bridge reminded me of a story form my childhood.

My uncle hired a local welder to build and install cattle grid on his farm, it was a non-standard gate so had to be made to order. We returned from a brief summer holiday to find a brand new cattle grid installed 90 Degrees out to what it should be.

That would stop them! ;D
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2477 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
https://theconversation.com/the-peer-review-system-is-breaking-down-heres-how-we-can-fix-it-275317
I don't know about the validity of the various fixes being proposed, but the headlines claiming peer review is diminished are true for a variety of reasons.

What's not true are the claims that science is broken because peer review is broken.

The real situation is that peer review is actively under attack by those trying to assert that science is broken, they frame science like a religion. But science has no component of faith. Those with influence are using restriction of funding to try and influence or restrict peer review and careers, to the point people are reluctant to review because of retribution.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2478 –
Was the article peer reviewed?  :P
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson
 

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2479 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Was the article peer reviewed?  :P
Very funny. ;D

But more seriously, in case someone thinks you made a valid point, editorials are not peer reviewed because they are opinion and commentary, they can be debated but that is not peer review. If an editorial references scientific papers, then those reference papers should be peer reviewed, commenting on papers that are yet to be reviewed is like commenting on a mirage.

Scientific papers that contain hypothesis, theory and scientific finding are peer reviewed because they are meant to contain testable claims. Many good quality papers typically offer ways to put the hypothesis to the test, and very rarely if ever do they make claims of certainty.

When an alleged scientific paper makes claims that aren't testable you know it's probably bogus. Like fool who told the world MMR vaccine caused Down Syndrome, what a jerk, can you think of others? The scientific papers in response made testable claims that the MMR vaccine was safe, they didn't argue the jerks false claims because it's impossible to prove a negative, they just let you infer from the testable evidence that the jerk was a jerk.

Scientific papers might never offer certainty about the subject matter, but they often rule out assertions that obviously cannot be true.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2480 –
Writing an article about scientific papers BEFORE they are peer reviewed should be banned.

Someone makes a bold claim to cure cancer, invents teleportation, solves world hunger and finds proof of intelligent life oustide our own little rock.......it gets talked about, everyone goes crazy!

Then....it gets peer reviewed and found that all is bunk.


......but you never get an article saying as much so people continue to believe those things.

Then there is a conspiracy about it all....etc...