We Never Know
No Slack
Analyze it. There's enough data there to get the point.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How reliable is peer review
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Analyze it. There's enough data there to get the point.
We Never Know
No Slack
I could care less
dfnj
Well-Known Member
All "good" objectivity is determined by a subjectivity or a subjective judgment.
We Never Know
No Slack
I've never said anything against science.
My argument has always been peer review is flawed, bias, needs work, etc.
Studies show that is correct.
You jump on board like I'm attacking science. That's your error.
Let's try this. Same difference if you had a 70 SS chevelle you restored to cherry. I look it over and say I don't like your ignition system because it's weak. I'm not saying your whole car is bad or flawed, just part of it.
Same difference with peer review. I'm not saying science is bad or flawed, but peer review is flawed and needs work to be better.
Good night
What is your conclusion based on? Is it just a couple of articles that you read or read about or do you have a deeper experience with science and the peer review process?
What does this mean?
That is putting your money where your mouth is. That does answer the question I had about your avatar.
I just missed being a neighbor of yours. I was in the final two for a position at North Carolina State. Alas, they went with the other person.
We Never Know
No Slack
Both. And it's more than just a couple studies. There are plenty that in my opinion I see as credible like the two I've already linked.
70 SS chevelle has nothing to do with science, but I did have a neat cherry red 1968 chevelle.
So you have been involved in publishing and peer review?
Well, it is a fairly under-researched area that is only now getting some credible attention.
What other studies do you consider as credible and revealing?
We Never Know
No Slack
It's an analogy. Something a scientist should have picked up on right out.
But again you avoid the content and give opinion.
Have a good night. Grampa'ing takes up time. Cooking cookies with one, watching one play the PS4 and playing chess with the third.
We Never Know
No Slack
If you're picking for information, you've already received all you are getting.
Not meaningful at all considering the peer review process is only one step in the research process.
I really like the 1966/1967 model years. There used to be a white 1967 Chevelle SS that the owner kept parked along the street near the house where I grew up. It would have been a nice fixer upper.
Good way to dodge and duck out without addressing the many responses that addressed this subject throughout the thread.
Science is not opinion.
So nothing then. Wasn't it you that was claiming avoidance earlier?
If you claim there are other papers, it is not unreasonable to ask about them. If you are claiming a deeper knowledge of the process, it is not unreasonable to ask after that. I am not asking who you are or what you do. You made claims. I am asking for some reason to consider you claims valid.
We Never Know
No Slack
Many things on the net. You seem interested so I will leave this.
Peer review is flawed - Bing
If you don't like Bing, use Google.
Everybody wants links, yet when links are posted they complain but don't refute. Why should anyone even post the links?
Scientific work is under constant scrutiny. I recall a professor of mine showing me some papers on snail taxonomy that was a sort of side interest of his. The methods and conclusions were good work for the 1960's when the papers were published. He showed me some of his work that demonstrated the taxonomy in those 1960's papers could be rejected based on his work using more advanced molecular techniques.
We Never Know
No Slack
I've posted links to studies, gave anologies, etc. I'm done.
So you claim it, but you are not even going to bother to address a reasonable request for papers that you specifically feel have merit in the discussion. I was not asking for many things on the net or search results. I was asking for things that are relevant in your opinion and why you consider them relevant.
You may want to retract comments you made to others about avoidance and anyone on here being able to claim things whether they are true or not.