Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: General Discussions (Read 1404674 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But more seriously, in case someone thinks you made a valid point, editorials are not peer reviewed because they are opinion and commentary, they can be debated but that is not peer review.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...

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2481 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
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...

That’s not how peer review works (but see my last sentence 🙏)

Peer reviewed journals like Science, Nature, the Lancet, etc will not publish articles without peer review.

The authors submit their paper to the journal and the journal sends it off to peers for review.  The paper may then go back to the authors for revision or clarification before it is accepted for publication.

Journals like Quadrant (where I have published a couple of articles) aren’t peer reviewed and that’s where the scenario you describe can occur.  In that case, it’s not peer reviewed but a rebuttal, correction or confirmation.

Of course, peer reviewed articles may also be subjected to rebuttals or different interpretations of data.  In my field recently, a peer reviewed paper proposed a slightly more recent time of arrival for the first Australians based on the presence Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA.  The next issue contained an article questioning the analysis and conclusions of the paper and a response from the authors of the first paper. 

Most ordinary punters may not know which journals/publications are peer reviewed or how the peer review process works. Cookers often claim that peer reviewers are paid to tick off papers despite the fact that the peers are anonymous.

Then there’s that process of post publication debate, challenge, testing, revision, disproving and/or confirmation; how our knowledge grows and improves.

Just read your post again and you mean a popular press “expose” of research results that haven’t yet been published in a peer reviewed journal.

"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2482 –
Not claiming that the UK government and police are perfect but what a difference between the UK’s response to the Epstein files and the obfuscation and inaction in the USA?
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2483 –
Sounds like they're doing the 'Al Capone' on Andrew (the b.s. artist formerly known as Prince.)
Get him for 'tax evasion' rather than organised participation in trafficking.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2484 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Sounds like they're doing the 'Al Capone' on Andrew (the b.s. artist formerly known as Prince.)
Get him for 'tax evasion' rather than organised participation in trafficking.
LOL

How can one member of the royal family be done for tax evasion?  How ironic.

If one is a tax evader, they all are, meanwhile isnt he the beneficiary of said taxes anyway?  Ridiculous doesnt begin to describe that one.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2485 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Quote from: Lods – on
Sounds like they're doing the 'Al Capone' on Andrew (the b.s. artist formerly known as Prince.)
Get him for 'tax evasion' rather than organised participation in trafficking.
LOL

How can one member of the royal family be done for tax evasion?  How ironic.

If one is a tax evader, they all are, meanwhile isnt he the beneficiary of said taxes anyway?  Ridiculous doesnt begin to describe that one.

Nah, it's not 'tax evasion' in Andrew's case.
That's what they got Capone for, rather than murder and mayhem

As of last I heard,the allegations relating to Andrew are 'misconduct in public office' and go back to when he was a trade envoy for the UK arouind 2010-11.
It's suggested he passed on sensitive documents he received in that role to Epstein
So far nothing relating to the sex trafficking side of things.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2486 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Sounds like they're doing the 'Al Capone' on Andrew (the b.s. artist formerly known as Prince.)
Get him for 'tax evasion' rather than organised participation in trafficking.
Something isn't quite right about all the Epstein suff if you ask me. The Aussie woman who claimed she was trafficked and committed suicide was a pathological liar so I couldnt trust a word she muttered.
The story about emails relating to Gates getting an STD and and requesting medication (or something like that) from Epstein is weird. Turns out the incriminating email was from Epstein to Epstein. WTF is that? So I could send am email to myself saying Lods needs cocaine and that's mean to incriminate Lods?
Something aint right with that whole story.
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time
2025-Carlton can win the 2025 AFL Premiership

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2487 –
Weird how nothing happened till he was stripped of all titles.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2488 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
Weird how nothing happened till he was stripped of all titles.
If I understand correctly, these charges are for using public funds inappropriately and contravening probity rules. It isn't related to Epstein (at this stage).
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time
2025-Carlton can win the 2025 AFL Premiership
 

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2489 –
Quote from: Gointocarlton – on
Quote from: Lods – on
Sounds like they're doing the 'Al Capone' on Andrew (the b.s. artist formerly known as Prince.)
Get him for 'tax evasion' rather than organised participation in trafficking.
Something isn't quite right about all the Epstein suff if you ask me. The Aussie woman who claimed she was trafficked and committed suicide was a pathological liar so I couldnt trust a word she muttered.
The story about emails relating to Gates getting an STD and and requesting medication (or something like that) from Epstein is weird. Turns out the incriminating email was from Epstein to Epstein. WTF is that? So I could send am email to myself saying Lods needs cocaine and that's mean to incriminate Lods?
Something aint right with that whole story.

Yes, something ain't right but Virginia Giuffre's version of events is backed up by documentary evidence and other witnesses, including more than 200 abuse survivors.  There's no question about her being abused as a young teenager by a sex trafficker who was later convicted or her recruitment from Mar-a-Lago by Maxwell as a 17 year old and living with her and Epstein until 2005.  She became involved in FBI investigations into Maxwell and Epstein after complaints from the parents of 14 year old girl and that prompted Giuffre to spill the beans.  She initially resisted but agreed to cooperate only after the AFP got involved.

She sued ex-Prince Andrew and he settled, paying her an undisclosed amount, donating to her charity, but denying wrongdoing.  Maxwell also settled when Giuffre sued her for defamation after she called Giuffre a liar.  While there wasn't a verdict in either case, the fact that the defendants settled indicates that Giuffre must have had the means to back up her version of events.

Thames Valley Police advised that the arrest of Mountbatten-Windsor followed "a complaint over the alleged sharing of confidential material by the former prince with late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein".  This occurred when Mountbatten-Windsor was a UK trade envoy.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball