From: bricoleur (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Wed Jul 16 2003 - 14:38:10 MDT
Sorry for the delay in responding.
Hermit, I would like to thank you for taking the time to offer such a rounded response. I am aware of the point you make about “punctuated by exclaimation points, or peppered with capitalized text,” and it was what sent the gauge into red when I was reading link 1. However, it is difficult to command respect if all one can offer as refutation, is that.
I admit to finding your handling of links 2 and 3 to be of particular interest, on a level of making my own thoughts clearer. I refer here to your comment of link 2, “Against this, Science is peer reviewed (bricoleur: see below **), and thus it is probable that the article is well reasoned and does not contain any major contradictions with known evidence. Ask me again in 20 years.” And to your comment of link 3, “I don't say that the author's theory is "wrong", merely that at this time it appears that the necessity for a new theory which he appears to be identifying seems less than necessary to me, and for now, I can live with the consensus model which while quite possibly wrong, is receiving the bulk of analysis.” These may seem obvious to you, as it does to me know, but it assisted in clarifying my thoughts considerably, so I thank you.
I have been ‘practising’ these suggestions of yours on some random papers with some promising results, and by promising I mean that my ability to critique has reached a new depth.
** You mention peer review above, which is interesting, as I was about to make a new post about peer review but shall post my question here. As you may be aware I have been searching the archives trying to digest as much of the scientific method as possible, and was wondering, as a non-scientist, just how successful the peer review process is?
I found the following online (yes I was looking for criticisms to peer review, I find this helps the learning process), “Peer review: the Holy Office of modern science” (http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-02/ns_mh.html), where the author claims:
“It is argued here that peer review as now undertaken by most scientific journals stifles scientific communication, slows the advancement of knowledge and encourages dishonest behavior among referees. Alternatives to peer review that have already been used by some journals and funding bodies are described. Since these alternatives have proved themselves in practice, the now commonly practised form of peer review can be abandoned or modified. Electronic communication can facilitate this process.”
Correct me if I am wrong about this, but as an individual who has (does?) worked as a scientist, and managed a team of scientists (if I recall correctly from a post I found buried deep in the archives!), what are your thoughts of the peer review process in relation to the article linked above?
Of course this question is open to answering by anyone here.
And before I go, thank you for your thoughts too Walter.
the bricoleur
---- This message was posted by bricoleur to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28802> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 16 2003 - 14:40:49 MDT