The Engineer's Book Club

I gave this a GA, as I think it is. However, I would like to consider a bit more about the idea of "peer review." To put it cynically, the peers of a naive or fraudulent purveyor of some idea or other may be equally naive or fraudulent. They are likely to rubber-stamp whatever misconceptions they already agree with. This happens frequently in such "disciplines" as pseudoscience, religion, quite a bit of philosophy, and any other "social construction." Maybe it would be better to encourage and honor other types of review, such as knowledgeable and critical but open-minded review. Alas, there is much too little of that, and even less recognition of it when it does occur.

Quite true. Many bogus organizations attempt to claim the high standard of Science by passing their ideas past their own flock and calling that a "peer review". But as you understand, true peers for these reviews must include people who do not initially agree with the presenter's work. (Allow me to apply some religious terms to my argument.) Truth does not get revealed by preaching to the choir, further pivotal revelations maybe discovered this way but not truth and acceptance. Truth and acceptance comes from converting the skeptics by responding to their questions. Ignoring a skeptic's questions (dismissal by claims of heresy) jeopardizes the presenters credibility.

Let me return now to the idea and implications from preaching to the choir. Some erroneously claim that preaching to the choir is only a "feel good" process. In actuality this leads to the most powerful arguments that can convince a skeptic of the validity for or against a presenter's idea. For by exploring the implications and repercussions of this idea, unexplained observations maybe explained or new phenomena maybe anticipated. Ideally the new phenomena had not been previously observed due to either a technology limitation or a lack of perspective. But observing a previously unknown phenomena because a presenter's idea lead us to look at the universe in a new way, heavily grants credence to the presenter's idea.

I disagree. The scientific peer review process, although not perfect is pretty rigorous, particularly in the better scientific journals. Anyone who has actually tried to get published in say Physical Review Letters can tell you that if you don't cross your t's and dot your i's you don't have a chance.

On what do you base your assertion that the peer review process is flawed? From what I can see, your argument seems to be:

1. I don't agree with the generally accepted scientific theory: A
2. I have found in the literature a minority of scientists that also don't agree with A
3. The Peer Review process is broken because A is still a generally accepted scientific theory despite the protests of a small minority of scientists.

Then you generally seek out like minded individuals (always of the same political inclinations) who reinforce your opinion.

You essentially turn your back on science because it doesn't confirm your incorrect, politically biased misconceptions. Everytime these dispersions are cast on science we fall just a little bit further behind the rest of the world in technological development. China and Europe now lead in solar power development and Fusion development. Once the LHC is functional we will dependent on Europe to make progress in particle physics. Why, because congress didn't like that it was costing over 10 billion dollars to advance the scientific frontiers (Superconducting Super Collider). School children in the US rank middle of the pack in Science and Math in the world.

The only solace I have is that the people that share your views tend to be older, which means time will hopefully solve this problem.

The scientific peer review process, although not perfect is pretty rigorous, particularly in the better scientific journals.

you generally seek out like minded individuals (always of the same political inclinations) who reinforce your opinion.

You essentially turn your back on reality because it doesn't confirm your incorrect, politically biased misconceptions.

How's that working for you? No intelligence allowed??

Roger,

I find it very strange that you, Roger, might think that I, redfred, dislike or find the peer review process flawed. I find the peer review process a pillar of strength of the Scientific method. I also find it ironic that you state "that if you don't cross your t's and dot your i's you don't have a chance." Now these two uses of the pronoun "you" are acceptably undefined for this discusses any individual submitting an article to a scientific journal. But the entire rest of your use of the pronoun "you" is undefined, Roger. You then cite three specific entries that have nothing to do with either my reply, the book review or anything I can see stated about this article. Roger, you have certainly not dotted your i's or crossed your t's here. This unfocused use of these pronouns is why, I do not understand the source of your comments.

This is awesome.

In your post #3 you write: "Many bogus organizations attempt to claim the high standard of Science by passing their ideas past their own flock and calling that a "peer review". "

Then in post #9 you write: "I find it very strange that you, Roger, might think that I, redfred, dislike or find the peer review process flawed."

G.A. Clear, blunt, possible unpopular, but spot on.

The best way for a young scientist to get fame and tenure is to prove everyone else wrong (or not quite right).

PR is PR good or bad is no difference it's PR.

Can't knock the Internet, I think the ratio would be essentially similar going door to door...

Why do I feel like when I had my three young kids living with me? When I would intervene in one of their all-too-frequent fights, one was always trying to tell why they were justified and the other completely at fault.

Although there was one who predominantly "started it", all were capable.

Reason didn't EVER win out!

To start, you both need a time out. If you can't agree to disagree, then we'll have to take more drastic measures.

By the way, I KNOW who is the one who usually starts things around here. Got eyes in the back of my head, y'know.

How many times do we get posts asking "is <insert product> a scam?" This should tell us something about general science knowledge, let alone that these posters don't know how to, or maybe don't even know that they can, continue an internet search to find out opposing viewpoints. Taking the information they have accumulated to make a decision to believe or not to believe the claim without having someone else tell them.

I think that what we are seeing is the demise of critical thinking.

I have a personal issue with hollywood. My case-in-point, the density of gold (Au). How many movies have you seen where the "bad guys" have gotten into <wherever> and started loading knapsacks/duffel bags/gunny sacks with gold bars, the weight of which is more than anyone could carry?

My irritation was brought about yesterday while watching an episode of "Heroes" where the Chinese guys, on entering the abode of the extremely-fast-chick, and finding a great amount of loot (including the Mona Lisa), notice a shelf on which are over a dozen liter-sized gold ingots. Ando sees them and reaches up to take one down as if the 43lb ingot was a bottle of water.

What percentage of people in the general populace understand the incongruity of this? I would bet that this value has been decreasing over the last 20 years.