Peer Review segment.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Is the process of Peer Review actually part of the Scientific Method. That's what I was taught in my science classes. It's the major, and crucial part of science in which professionals of other fields evaluate/retest/and pick apart work so that the system, as a whole, is stronger.

What do you do when people say that Peer Review is not all it's cracked up to be? People seem to give me the impression that they think Peer Review is a bunch of cronies wanking together trying to shoot down real science. I was told it's not reliable, it's unfair, and that it's nonsense, but this doesn't seem valid.

They say it can be a science and a scientific theory, but never need to go to peer review, but that seems to go against what I was taught.

Is this just pushing of pseudoscience and fear of being shot down by fellow peers? (Obviously, they have an ax to grind if they find problems in the theory!)

[DPDarkPrimus]

Bias can be a problem with peer-review, as can peer-pressure. It's not a perfect system, but if you are right, you can prove everyone else wrong with hard work. It's been done many times before. It's not a perfect system, but it does what it's supposed to do: keep the bullshit out.

[wolveraptor]

As long as scientists remain honest and open-minded, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem. By now, scientists should know that the accepted theory!= correct theory.

Of course, that isn't an arguement for idiotic theories by itself.

[Master of Ossus]

Is the process of Peer Review actually part of the Scientific Method. That's what I was taught in my science classes. It's the major, and crucial part of science in which professionals of other fields evaluate/retest/and pick apart work so that the system, as a whole, is stronger.

What do you do when people say that Peer Review is not all it's cracked up to be? People seem to give me the impression that they think Peer Review is a bunch of cronies wanking together trying to shoot down real science. I was told it's not reliable, it's unfair, and that it's nonsense, but this doesn't seem valid.

It's not. What would these people propose that would be better than peer review? Peer review may not be perfect, but its flaws are inherent to humans (ie. people have biases) and much more pronounced in any alternate system (ie. dogmatic adherence to the teachings of others).

They say it can be a science and a scientific theory, but never need to go to peer review, but that seems to go against what I was taught.

That seems very difficult to believe--ask for an example of something that is "science and a scientific theory" but never had to go through peer review. I'm willing to bet they won't be able to come up with a legitimate example. Remember that just because a theory went through fairly easily does NOT mean that it was not reviewed.

Is this just pushing of pseudoscience and fear of being shot down by fellow peers? (Obviously, they have an ax to grind if they find problems in the theory!)

It sounds like it. Can you link to the site of someone who makes such claims?

[RedImperator]

It seems to me that if there were no formal system of peer review, scientists' natures being what they are, theories would still end up getting tested by other scientists, and flaws exposed. It's silly to think that scientists conspire to protect bad theories; the quickest way to fame and status in the scientific community is to successfully knock over an established theory. Eventually one would break ranks for the chance to take sole credit for discovering the flaw in the old theory, and embarassing the rest of his comrades.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It's through email correspondance, but I can post what he said. The guy I am arguing with is going off on some rant when I asked him to prove the findings of Technocracy INC were validated through Peer Review. Anyone who criticises it is labled troll or "capitalist conspirator."


He has yet to provide any, but since it's not promulgated by any scientists outside the organization, only within, it's not in textbooks, it's not talked about at all in academics, I don't see how it's not bullshit.

Then you have the wackos that go off and say that Peer Review is some major conspiracy of biaesd people who have an ax to grind. They know the theory is accurate scientifically, yet they don't want it to get out.


Exact Comments:

And may the reason that ordinary scientists often rejects technocracy before they've even seen it have something to do with 1. that it could be dangerous to present conclusions that may harm the current establishment, and 2. that technocracy is basically nature science that has intruded on the area of "social science"?

I've run into that type alot, especially latelly. They are scared and in denial of the faultering world economy.

The direct above was in reference to my comment that I can find no credible sources backing up the theory.

If I use the scientific method in my bathroom at home, and successfully devise, through these processes, an acceptable anti-grime agent out of non-soap chemicals, that my friend is science. No peer review, no academic study. It's a tool, a method, that deals only with the laws of the universe, not the opinions of some lofty intellectuals.

What you rely on could be called the "culture of science", rather than science itself, and peer review is far from a perfect way of determining what is useful or proper science. Heavens, that "culture" is as rife with politics, egos, and corruption as any political organization. They've supported ideas and theories that have long since been proven false. So don't go deifying it as the ultimate source of scientific knowledge.
[/quoite]

Which I never did, but he has no respect for the entire concept.

[applejack]

From the descriptions of the conversation you had with them, it kind of sounds like they're referring to popular sentiment more than the work of the scientific community. I don't know why they're separating peer review from science. Did you bring up any points about scientists publishing their work in journals for it to be looked at by other scientists?

Which I never did, but he has no respect for the entire concept.

Well, try to bring up the points Master of Ossus said earlier. Peer review is basically a way to hedge human fallibility. Individuals can make mistakes. People with different perspectives may be able to see things the researcher missed and be able to give constructive criticism.

[Darth Wong]

Peer review is necessary because the entire scientific philosophy is based not on establishment of ideas, but falsification of them. As Karl Popper pointed out, you cannot prove something is true, but you can prove that it is false. A scientific theory can only gain credibility by surviving multiple pedigreed attempts to prove it false. Without those attempts, it has no credibility.

[The Grim Squeaker]

The problem is that an unbiased, completly open minded human being is a falsification in itself.
Still until someone invents a telepathic reviewing machine it’s a decent screening process...

[Darth Wong]

The problem is that an unbiased, completly open minded human being is a falsification in itself.
Still until someone invents a telepathic reviewing machine it’s a decent screening process...

You're obviously missing the whole point. The falsification peer-review process is designed to compensate for individual human biases, by letting lots of people take a crack at attacking the theory, and giving them psychological incentive to succeed.

And peer review is not about examining the originator of the idea, telepathically or otherwise. He could be completely honest and 100% unbiased and still be wrong. Scientific theories live and die on their own, with no reference to their authors.

[Elfdart]

This guy you're arguing with just trotted out one of the telltale signs of hogwash: that his secret knowledge will upset the scientific community.

It is true that when dealing with social sciences, you're dealing with opinion and faces in clouds as much as facts. But peer review is a must for the true sciences. The best way I explain it to laymen is as follows:

A chef claims to have a new recipe for chocolate cake. He hands you his instructions and ingredients. Now if you follow his instructions, you should be able to reproduce the cake. If you can't, either the instructions were faulty or you didn't follow them properly, or possibly there was a difference in the types of ovens used -or the chef was bullshitting you. Some fakes are more easily spotted than others. For example if the chef claims to have made a wonderful chocolate cake out of raw flounder and linseed oil all the while without using any chocolate.

Peer review is the best way to weed out the nonsense from real science, and that's why con artists want nothing to do with it.

[Nephtys]

Right. Telltale sign #1 of a Pseudoscientist is to claim that there's some kind of 'scientific establishment' that refuses to listen to a 'radical claim'. How many times have you heard that before? Lots of previous theories that we now follow were 'radical', most notable would be general relativity. But take a look. No crazy scientist conspiracy stopped that from being reviewed, did it?

Peer review is just our filter for bull. It seems to work well enough really. Plus one thing just to look at in the case of pseudoscientists claiming revolutionary advances is that... if they were really hated by the scientific community, why doesn't someone just steal their idea? A little off topic. But yeah.

The nature of peer review minimizes bias by spreading confirmation amongst multiple people. If they can all reproduce the experiment, no question about it. If there's one spiteful bastard who lies to try to shoot down the theory, ten other unrelated attempts will succeed and the theory'll be validated.