Peer Review Tyranny

a reply to: Mary Rose

You base that on what results, experimentation, and statistics? Or is that just a personal anecdote? You know, something that peer review weeds out.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I base it on the sum total of all the research I've done into what's going on in the world.

a reply to: Mary Rose

Which is? And is that a repeatable experiment that I can replicate myself? Would you care to give me the procedure so that I can replicate it myself? Please be detailed. I don't want there to be any doubt as to how to go about reproducing your results. Also, I would like to see your data as well.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't know.

Do you think for yourself?

Perhaps you should go for a long walk and do some self-searching.

I like wildespace's avatar

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't know.

Do you think for yourself?

Well I'm trying to do JUST that by asking to review your evidence that the claim you just made is true. Is there some other reason I should believe you?

I mean if you are going to be preaching against peer review, certainly you aren't going to peddle wild claims at the same time that aren't testable?

Perhaps you should go for a long walk and do some self-searching.

Huh? What does this have to do with collecting evidence of your claims? How am I going to learn about how self taught people have a greater thirst for knowledge than university educated people if you won't tell me how you came to these conclusions?

Right now I am of the opinion that peer review is a good idea. Your responses to these inquiries really reinforces that opinion. So in effect, your thread had the opposite effect than its intention on me.

I will say that you made some good points about politics and shaming. But I feel in the end, the truth will come out. If the experiment is reproducible and not based on flimsy premises or makes crazy assumptions and the conclusion is sound, then it will eventually be accepted. If this has to happen outside published journals, then so be it. That doesn't mean it can't be peer reviewed eventually. Heck, you proved that was true in your OP.

a reply to: Mary Rose

Howdy,

Absolutely correct on your first point. I misspoke (miswrote? mistyped? you get the idea). Certainly peer review is not a process of validating claims, it is a process of reviewing methods, results, and conclusions to see if proper procedures were followed and logical conclusions were drawn from significant data... I do apologize for that confusion. What I meant to say was something more like, "Given time, the process of peer review will eventually be followed to the point where correctly followed procedures and accurate data will be accepted and published." I'm afraid I'm still not communicating that clearly enough, I'm struggling for the right words here, and for that I apologize again...

Peer review is indeed the gate that must be passed in order to share results with the community at large... Sure, you can go through other channels. You can propose that a giant Kraken had arranged a self portrait of itself in an undersea garden to your peers at a conference, but do you think they're going to listen to you if you cut corners and propose something that only you have "seen the evidence for?" The mainstream (majority) scientists won't, no matter how much the public will. That's because the mainstream scientists respect that gate and know it has a legitimate purpose.

Sure, this is a discussion on a conspiracy board, I get that... But to quote your OP, "...what effect does it have on science and technology?" We've discussed the impact of peer review, its necessity to science. If you wish to write about science, then it is necessary to follow the actual scientific protocols in place. To discuss things outside of the scientific protocols is to no longer discuss science or technology. I am fine if you want to believe the moon is cheese, but I will not let you say that it is science/scientific to say the moon is cheese.

As for opinions, skepticism, creativity, and all pursuits of knowledge, I am in complete support of those things... But you cannot call an opinion a fact/knowledge... It will never be more than an opinion until it is supported by independent evidence, and you cannot have independent evidence until the evidence comes from outside of an isolated person or group. This is often why certain "journals" are ridiculed by the mainstream.

Regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

Science is science whether it's peer reviewed or not if it is exploring how the universe works.

Let members be their own scientists and share their ideas freely.

That's what I'm advocating.

a reply to: Mary Rose

Certainly, science is science regardless of peer review. But peer review is useful to ensure a certain degree of confidence in the validity of a scientist's methods, would you not agree?

I am fine with members expressing their opinions, throwing out hypotheses. If someone wants to say, "Hey, I think dinosaurs grew so big because the Earth had a lot less mass, and thus had less gravitational force back then," I'm okay with them asking *for thoughts*... But you better believe that I won't let them assert that as truth without evidence, without scrutiny. If I see something that is factually inconsistent with the laws of nature, you better believe that I will ask for clarification, evidence, and replication of the results. In essence, if you say the moon is cheese, I will argue against it, because the case is almost certainly that the moon is not cheese and it is unreasonable to think the moon is cheese...

All I am advocating is for science to remain strictly methodological as to maintain reasonable confidence in the results of others...

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Mary Rose

Certainly, science is science regardless of peer review. But peer review is useful to ensure a certain degree of confidence in the validity of a scientist's methods, would you not agree?

I'm not sure it is.

Here's one article: "Is the Peer Review Process for Scientific Papers Broken?"

The world is changing.

Perhaps a new and better paradigm will emerge.

a reply to: Mary Rose

All right, I'll be reasonable here and follow your path... What is the alternative you are suggesting? Remove the peer review process and allow all articles to automatically be published? All ideas to go unscrutinized by anyone? That would remove any certainty that anyone had even so much as looked at the methods to see if they were even relevant to the data presented. I imagine chaos in this scenario, but of course this is a false dichotomy and a slippery slope argument. But it gets to the following point, I think.

It is well to propose a revision of peer review, perhaps an improvement in the pay of reviewers to provoke more qualified individuals to actually review for a journal would go a long way to meet these means. In fact, I would propose a tighter gate to ensure the reliability of an article, rather than your seemingly proposed methods of bypassing said gate.

It is well to wish for a better system, but wishing does not accomplish. I understand that you may wish for this thread (rather someone in this thread) to generate a better system(or for this discussion to somehow generate said system...), but I ask you what system you think would work better? All humans are fallible and capable of mistakes, so all systems that require humans will at some point fail for some reason. As it is, peer review is a necessary evil in my eyes, so please show me a better way if you have one.

a reply to: hydeman11

I propose that the topic be discussed perhaps in another thread.

Meanwhile, my main message is:

Peer review should not be cited as a requirement before something can be discussed in the Science and Technology forum, nor should it be used as a weapon to shoot down posts made by members who explore alternative science and technology.

a reply to: Mary Rose

All right, fair enough request. I do apologize if I took anything too far from the initial topic.

I agree that cutting edge science should be allowed to be discussed in the relevant forum without peer review, but I would hope that people would wish to clarify that such science is cutting edge and subject to change or falsification. I do not particularly like situations where someone might say "What happened to that new miracle cure for head colds that scientist discovered three years ago?" only to discover that the mainstream media covered faulty science that could not be repeated...

As for alternative science, there is no such thing. You have science and not science, that is a real dichotomy.

And forgive me, for I may be misinterpreting your post, but it seems that you do not want people to use peer reviewed papers as evidence to refute an "alternative" hypothesis? The way I interpret this is something like... (You're gonna love moon cheese by the end of this conversation. >.>) If someone claims that the moon is made of cheese, I cannot post a peer reviewed paper on lunar anorthosite to suggest they are wrong? Would I need to personally go to the moon and collect and analyze samples, or use some other means, that scientists have already done?

If you want to call something science, it must conform to science... Clearly the moon cheese hypothesis does not. It has no scientific backing, no reason to be discussed, and certainly should not be allowed in the "Science and Technology forum."

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: hydeman11

I propose that the topic be discussed perhaps in another thread.

Meanwhile, my main message is:

Peer review should not be cited as a requirement before something can be discussed in the Science and Technology forum, nor should it be used as a weapon to shoot down posts made by members who explore alternative science and technology.

So your message is that you want to be able to spam this science forum with your pseudo-scientific claims without being challenged with scientific evidence?

Do you not see the irony here? You want to disbar people from challenging you with scientific evidence and create an echo chamber of people agreeing with your pseudo-scientific claims in the one forum (out of however many there are here) where there is supposed to be some modicum of scientific standards?

Crank Tyranny, more like.

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Mary Rose
As for alternative science, there is no such thing. You have science and not science, that is a real dichotomy.

Bingo.

Maybe the term “alternative science” emerged because people needed it to at least be allowed to speak publicly about something important having to do with science.

And forgive me, for I may be misinterpreting your post, but it seems that you do not want people to use peer reviewed papers as evidence to refute an "alternative" hypothesis?

Absolutely not.

I cite peer reviewed papers all the time.

I love things that are professionally put in writing so we all know what the topic is and can have an intelligent discussion.

a reply to: Mary Rose

I cite peer reviewed papers all the time.

Ok, let's back up a bit: you're happy citing peer-reviewed papers if your misunderstanding of them can be construed to supporting your position, but citing peer-reviewed papers that refute your position is a no-no?

Am I getting this right?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Mary Rose

Am I getting this right?

No.

I'm happy citing peer reviewed papers.

I'm also happy citing papers written by laymen who are articulate and have something intelligent to say in my opinion.

a reply to: Mary Rose

So you can cite peer-reviewed papers, but others can't if you disagree with them? After all, you said this:

nor should it be used as a weapon to shoot down posts made by members who explore alternative science and technology

So when you cite peer-reviewed papers, it's fine. If someone cites a peer-reviewed paper that goes against your position, it's not fine. Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy here?

When is it ok to cite peer-reviewed papers, then?

But hold up a second... what about the "tyranny of peer-review"? You're not even being consistent with your logic here.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Mary Rose

So you can cite peer-reviewed papers, but others can't if you disagree with them? After all, you said this:

nor should it be used as a weapon to shoot down posts made by members who explore alternative science and technology

So when you cite peer-reviewed papers, it's fine. If someone cites a peer-reviewed paper that goes against your position, it's not fine. Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy here?

When is it ok to cite peer-reviewed papers, then?

But hold up a second... what about the "tyranny of peer-review"? You're not even being consistent with your logic here.

In my humble experience, many people who go on and on about peer reviewed papers haven't a clue what that phrase means but have just heard it as indicating something that has "gravitas."

A lot goes into reading and understanding the literature--methodoly, statistical significance, P-value, and if their claimed conclusions actually logically comes from the data they present. "They did a study" is not really informative nor helpful.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Mary Rose

Am I getting this right?

No.

I'm happy citing peer reviewed papers.

I'm also happy citing papers written by laymen who are articulate and have something intelligent to say in my opinion.

Papers and articles written by laymen may indeed be interesting, however, unless they have some sort of methodology in their methods, one cannot draw conclusions with them. Very often I see such papers that really have no evidence at all other than some anecdotes.