How reliable is peer review

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't write the study or anything in it. I did find it interesting. On the last sentence about "belief"(which is the way it was worded in the study) I simply suggested maybe they weren't saying science is about belief, but scientists have belief in peer review.

No, peer review has a well earned respect since it is the most reliable way to make sure that one is not wasting one's time. Scientists understand the peer review is not the end all and be all of science. It is only the beginning of the history of a new idea.

 

[David T]

Many religious people don't like science that shows for example the flood didn't happen because it goes against their reality of the biblical accounts.

Be careful not to have their reality be the reality of the accounts. History, becomes legend, legend becomes, myth is real. To literally say the text is myth based on modern creationism Reality is like saying crazy people know what they are talking about. 100% of the evidence points to them not even being wrong. Therefore what they understand about the texts is 100% irrelevant.

 

[usfan]

Well, not only. Lots of med research is bad, the linked
article was from a med journal. And no doubt some
ill considered stuff gets out in chemistry and physics too.

In the event, your observation is true, that if bad data
is published-and the topic is of any interest or relevance
to anyone, which i likely will never be- then the problem
will come out before long.

Who decides what is 'good or bad'?

 

[David T]

Oh and to add, I would think this study critiquing peer review was probably peer reviewed itself. That's irony.

Thats circular!

I like to tell religious studies majors that i am part if a university program of studying, religious studies majors, studying religion as the religious folks are studying. I think Kant called that trancendental illusion, which the intellect is very good at creating very poor at understanding.

 

[We Never Know]

What would be the "objective" measurement to determine that exactly? One could say cosmology itself is problematic. We dont have a math of math although we certainly could create one i suppose.

Science is a narrative and thus it comes under certain limitations like all the rest of the things we do. Ironically there are deeply religious folk off the deep end who might read this as justification for their fantasies.Science is good at pointing out fantasies although it can create fantasies as well. But its all very "normal".

"Ironically there are deeply religious folk off the deep end who might read this as justification for their fantasies."

I think one might have just arrived to the thread a few minutes ago

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who decides what is 'good or bad'?

Peer review is only the first step in a new idea being accepted. An idea gets judged to be "good or bad" It gets tested and retested. If it fails repeatedly it is obviously bad. If it passes tests it may be good. Acceptance of ideas is always conditional in the sciences. Just because a claim passes a test once it is not 'gospel".

 

[David T]

The course is indeed taught in virtually all major universes, but yes requirements may vary. This where I learned of the important contributions by Popper to the modern development of the scientific method. The course I took was primarily addressing science.

Feynman thought philosophy of science was idiotic he is correct. Nature determines not philosophy and he was very very firm on that. That guy was brilliant with a 129 IQ..

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Ironically there are deeply religious folk off the deep end who might read this as justification for their fantasies."

I think one might have just arrived to the thread a few minutes ago

Or you may just be projecting again. That happens with those that do not understand the sciences far too often.

 

[We Never Know]

No, peer review has a well earned respect since it is the most reliable way to make sure that one is not wasting one's time. Scientists understand the peer review is not the end all and be all of science. It is only the beginning of the history of a new idea.

Peer review sets an article up to be published or not. Others peers read the study and either agree with it, disagree with it or parts of it. The peers don't go do all the research, experiments and tests again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Peer review sets an article up to be published or not. Others peers read the study and either agree with it, disagree with it or parts of it. The peers don't go do all the research, experiments and tests again.

Correct. Do you have a point?

 

[We Never Know]

Or you may just be projecting again. That happens with those that do not understand the sciences far too often.

What is it with you and your constant personal attacks.
First off you act like that post was about you, ask yourself this, "are you a deeply religious folk?"

 

[We Never Know]

Correct. Do you have a point?

Already made it.

 

[David T]

"Ironically there are deeply religious folk off the deep end who might read this as justification for their fantasies."

I think one might have just arrived to the thread a few minutes ago

Moi? Now Thats funny. Now if you said John Muir That would be accurate. I am pretty sure fonts and math symbols dont determine much but i keep sitting right here with an eagle eye just in case one rolls in on the waves. I could be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is it with you and your constant personal attacks.
First off you act like that post was about you, ask yourself this, "are you a deeply religious folk?"

Oh please. You made a personal attack and it was met with less of one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Already made it.

It must have been on another page. Perhaps you should not be so vague in your claims. Though being vague is a way that those that are afraid to make a point will hide their fears. It gives them plausible deniability.

Let's go over this one more time. Peer review is not perfect. It is quite often wrong. Scientists know this. It is why peer reviewed articles are tested and retested. Controversial new ideas are tested countless times. It is not perfect, but it is better than any other system out there.

If you don't like peer review then you should see if you can improve it or think of some better method. The reason that peer review is the standard of supporting one's claims in scientific debates is not because it is "right", but because it is right far more often than ideas that cannot pass peer review.

 

[We Never Know]

I posted this study because it highlights flaws in peer review that some people think is the gold standard and was hoping the discussion would be in the lines of how, why and what could be done to make peer review better.

As it turns out it seems people felt it was an attack on science and attacked the study(reminded me of how some religious folk attack science that shows their religion flawed or wrong).

In my opinion Peer review isn't part of the scientific method(process) which validates through testing, experimenting, observing, etc.

Peer review is simply used to publish papers. Others peers read the study and either agree with it, disagree with it or parts of it. The peers don't go do all the research, experiments and tests again.

 

[We Never Know]

Oh please. You made a personal attack and it was met with less of one.

Please point out the personal attack you are claiming I made? If you don't, then I will take your claim as invalid.

 

[Audie]

It must have been on another page. Perhaps you should not be so vague in your claims. Though being vague is a way that those that are afraid to make a point will hide their fears. It gives them plausible deniability.

Let's go over this one more time. Peer review is not perfect. It is quite often wrong. Scientists know this. It is why peer reviewed articles are tested and retested. Controversial new ideas are tested countless times. It is not perfect, but it is better than any other system out there.

If you don't like peer review then you should see if you can improve it or think of some better method. The reason that peer review is the standard of supporting one's claims in scientific debates is not because it is "right", but because it is right far more often than ideas that cannot pass peer review.

Um, like, lets not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please point out the personal attack you are claiming I made? If you don't, then I will take your claim as invalid.

""Ironically there are deeply religious folk off the deep end who might read this as justification for their fantasies."

I think one might have just arrived to the thread a few minutes ago "

You aimed this at someone. Does it matter who?

 

[We Never Know]

""Ironically there are deeply religious folk off the deep end who might read this as justification for their fantasies."

I think one might have just arrived to the thread a few minutes ago "

You aimed this at someone. Does it matter who?

Repeating someone post and saying one might have arrived isn't a personal attack.

Since you keep avoiding the question of "are you religious folk" I will answer for you. No you are not. Which clearly shows my post had nothing to do with you.

The only part of the post that caught your eye was "I think one might have just arrived" which you mistakenly thought was about you or you just wanted to argue as usual.

I think it's about time for me to ignore you as some of the others here have.

Have a hug and enjoy life more instead of being frumpy all the time