peer reviewed

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Old Rocks, Jul 5, 2010.

  1. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,466
    Thanks Received:
    5,414
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,310
    There are many on this board, even some claiming scientific credentials, that seem to equate faceless blogs with peer reviewed articles. While I can understand that being the case for some of the less than stellar IQs on this board, I can only surmise the reason for those that seem to have a modicum of intelligence.

    Peer review vs commercials and spam

    Why is that? And what exactly is peer review?

    The concept of peer review is about 300 years old and is the cornerstone of modern science. The best analogy for peer review is that it acts as a spam filter: rubbish ideas are kept from being published so that other scientists don’t waste their time reading spam. Only ideas that are not obviously rubbish make it into the literature, and once in the literature, the scientific marketplace of ideas determines their ultimate fate.

    Let’s examine how different this process is from just posting one’s ideas on some web page.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,172
    Thanks Received:
    14,904
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,910
    Let's us also examine how Peer Review and Consensus is not how real science is performed

    The ultimate irony is OR just posted one’s ideas on some web page to back up his position that posting ideas on a web page is not real science.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,172
    Thanks Received:
    14,904
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,910
    Was this supposed to be funny because it's hilarious!
     
  4. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,692
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    The peer review process has also been bastardized to support AGW. You may as well be pointing to Cinderella as proof of the existence of fairy godmothers.

    It's easy to win if you stack the deck...but it's cheating.
     
  5. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,172
    Thanks Received:
    14,904
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,910
    I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,692
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    I reviewed it myself, and I concur.

    Old Rocks, we have reached consensus. The science is settled.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,172
    Thanks Received:
    14,904
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,910
    I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

    The vast majority of posters in this thread believe Old Rocks is full of shit
     
  8. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,692
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    Upon further review of your review, I endorse it wholeheartedly. Furthermore, careful review of the available data in the shape of a lacrosse stick shows that Old Rocks does not exist.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    The way Peer review is supposed to work is that the work is put out there with the basic data so that independent reviewers can examine the work and check to make sure the Ts are dotted and the eyes are crossed. It is supposed to instill rigor in the system by making checks on the underlying data.

    Peer review in this case was less honest than the "peer review" of a proof of homeopathy by a homeopath or by having psychics prove each others honesty.

    The base data never was available, was never reviewed, and the peers reviewing the data were folks submitting papers depending on the worst offenders for payment. Peer review was not an independent tets, it was a monster circle jerk.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  10. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    I've peer reviewed these posts, and CrusaderFrank Johnson is right about daveman Johnson being right about CrusaderFrank Johnson being right.
     

Share This Page