Peer Review Tyranny

a reply to: peter vlar

A scientific theory is differentiated from a hypothesis in that a theory must explain actual observations.

what happens when they refuse to.....what then?

The fact of the matter is that the merits of papers are quite heavily debated

and the data variables are thoroughly scrutinized and replicated to see if the SAME results occur.....

so again, what happens when they refuse to peer review, yet other ...'scientists'... base their peer review papers on this non peer reviewed data pushed

16) 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

34) 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
math.ucr.edu...

MARTIN GARDNER’S SIGNS OF A CRANK
www.skepticblog.org...

crank dot net
www.crank.net...

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Mary Rose

Right, because there's no competition between scientists or their egos. It's a bunch of guys and gals pretending to go to a scientific "conference" where instead of debating the merits of published work they actually just drink Martinis and gin and tonics while holding hands in a circle singing kumbaya.

At science & math conferences, they serve pots of percolator coffee and stale generic cookies. In the evening, we have to go buy our own beer when we hang out.

I was at one when towards the end, a conference for physicians was starting up. The same hotel staff which perfunctorily gave us the above, had served an immense spread in the center of their conference with lobster, shrimp and the waiters were serving wine into nice glasses to the seated participants.

originally posted by: biffcartright
a reply to: Mary Rose

I once heard of this scientific team that pushed a claim.....they hired their own peer review team to keep their data inside.....
...wonder how common this practice is.

It depends on what the context is.

Plenty of biotechnology companies have a "Scientific Advisory Board". These would typically be eminent academic scientists or technologists who already have day jobs in other companies or universities. They would review and vet the internal results from the company's technical employees. One job is to be responsible to the CEO and the board that the company is spending money appropriately, and without the internal ego and fear of losing the job that might motivate internal employees not to be quite as honest. Another is to bring in higher-level and broader scientific thinking and information about the field to people who were focused heavily on their day to day work.

In these cases, it's perfectly normal for the 'peer review' to be internal, and paid, and the results undisclosed, because it was all for their internal use.

The most famous example is the JASON's for the DoD, which review very difficult scientific & engineering matters of nation importance. They are composed of super top level people (Nobel Prize level isn't out of the question) who have been involved with government & science for many years. One of their main jobs is to prevent the DOD's generals and bureaucrats from keeping on spending money on BS. Some of their reports are public, some are classified.

For peer review for journal publication, it doesn't happen at all. First, nobody is getting paid. That's right, the reviewers get absolutely nothing for their work. They're anonymous, and uncompensated. It's shocking it isn't far worse than it is. When somebody submits a paper, they can, optionally, submit a list of suggested reviewers, and occasionally a list of suggested non-reviewers. (I never used the second). These are only suggestions to the editor, who makes the decision.

(The commercial publishers have a sweet deal---their material is all produced for free, and is mostly edited & reviewed for free, and now that most submissions are in TeX, it's practically typeset for free. And the people doing all the work have to end up paying for it!)

originally posted by: biffcartright
a reply to: peter vlar

what happens when they refuse to.....what then?

Then its still a hypothesis

so again, what happens when they refuse to peer review, yet other ...'scientists'... base their peer review papers on this non peer reviewed data pushed

Give me an actual example of this happening. I can't comment on a "what if?!"

a reply to: mbkennel

They gave you guys cookies? Now I'm pissed... I had to bring my own snacks and then they asked me to leave because I was crunching my potatoe chips too loudly during the presentation... Like that idiot was saying anything of value.there were people fondling each other behind me and my crunching was annoying?!

Free cookies, I'm so there. I've been signing up for the wrong conferences and lectures.

a reply to: peter vlar

Give me an actual example of this happening. I can't comment on a "what if?!"

People do spiteful stuff like this all the time.
Scientists are not exempt from being human.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Yes, sometimes common sense about how the world works needs to prevail.

A characteristic of scientism would be to demand something along the lines of a double-blind study to prove everything under the sun, regardless.

a reply to: Mary Rose

You seem to be up in arms about people asking for sources when you make vague claims and attacks without offering up concrete examples. Apparently to you that's "scientism" yet for most reasonable people it would be the prerequisite to informed discussion.

a reply to: Mary Rose

A characteristic of scientism would be to demand something along the lines of a double-blind study to prove everything under the sun, regardless.

I'm not so sure I would go that far.
Most of the people I would identify as being prone to scientism generally tend not to question anything that carries the label "science".

The complicating factor is what they consider science.
Which is generally whatever the scientific community says.

a reply to: GetHyped

And you're taking a swaree into illogic.
Your point?

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

So you don't have any examples either? For something as tyrannical as peer review seems to be as it proliferates the world with impunity I'm not seeing much to back up the fantasy except for allusions to Scooby Doo-esque scenarios. Weird.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Asking for concrete examples of claims is "illogical"?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Asking for concrete examples of claims is "illogical"?

To some it's not only illogical but possibly even tyrannical as well.

a reply to: GetHyped

No, addressing the person and perceived motivation is illogic.

And I provided a good example.
Or do you deny that people do that?

originally posted by: biffcartright
They are on video at the own tech briefing making this scientific claim they refuse to show outside the authors how this can occur.

How do they get away with that?

originally posted by: biffcartright
a reply to: peter vlar

So you don't have any examples either? For something as tyrannical as peer review seems to be as it proliferates the world with impunity I'm not seeing much to back up the fantasy except for allusions to Scooby Doo-esque scenarios. Weird.

uhm....we had a perfect example of "peer review tyranny" earlier in this thread being.....YOU were involved in the discussion and it got out of hand....didn't it.....go reread starting on page 5...how soon we forget huh!

Scientist 'A' is charged to scientifically investigate for a cause of an incident.

but Scientist 'A' can find no scientific reason why the incident occurred..[but has to because of pressure from above].

then three years later, Scientist 'A-1', 'A-2' and 'A-3' come up with a new form of physics to show as the scientific reason why the incident occurs.....but refuses to communicate and peer review outside themselves to anyone.

this hypothesis concerns a new phenomenon of science that is claimed to have only occurred on ONE day...never before or since.

a brand new never before seen form of 'thermal expansion' that occurs at LOW TEMPS to structurally REMOVE resistance to allow global unified CONSTANT acceleration EQUAL to g. of structural mass.

a 'constant' rate of acceleration that BEFORE this event, ONLY occurred with a 'clear path 'below....this new phenomenon is claimed to REMOVE structural mass, not just 'contribute' but CAUSE the mass to disappear to allow constant acceleration.

and with no validation, verification, PEER REVIEW form anyone outside the authors, it goes straight to scientific fact.......

and you have no problem with this type of behavior within Academia???

of the fact of having other so-called 'peer reviewed' papers presented based on this unsupported new science that only occurred on one day???????

what journal or publishing would this be ?
please clarify.