| Pages:
1
2 |
bquirky
Hazard to Others
Posts: 316
Registered: 22-10-2008
Location: Perth Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"The problem with a lot of Americans"
Thats my point there ARE a lot of Americans. and a small percentage of a lot can still be a lot. (at least compared to where im from)
But ill happily conseed this point in favor of a more interesting discussion on peer review.
its possibly a sacred cow in these parts but ill go out on a limb.
I have published a very small handful of papers over the last few years in a non controversial field (nothing of any great note) and found the
experience quite eye opening. Leading me to believe that many journals may be vulnerable to a kind of selection bias.
Not a personal and deliberate bias but a system wide phenomenon where lots of small forces add up to a noticeable effect.
I will attempt to list some of these small forces.
* for various reasons Having a manuscript published is desirable. (track record,grant money, prestige,ego etc etc)
* publication in a journal of higher impact factor is preferred
* journals with higher impact factors have many more submions than can be published
* journal editors will pick regular contributes as reviewers
* regular contributes to a journal will have a large body of relevant work in the field
* it is desirable to have a larger number of citations of previous work.
* it is considered 'good form' to cite regular contributors to the field as they are likely to be your reviewers and hence decided weather your work
is fit to be published.
hence you cannot become a 'peer' able to preform reviews on work without previously subscribing to the views of the existing peers.
I believe that this all adds up to a selection bias generally in favor of previously published positions at the detriment of possibly valid work that
contradicts previous longstanding contributors.
I Would put forward the argument that the current AGW debate is particularly susceptible to this kind of bias and hence the gold standard of 'peer
review' is through no particular fault of anybody far far from flawless.
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
Just a little info on the Roman catholic church opinion on evolution. I was raised in a RC family (not a very strict one), and my country belongs to
its "civilization circle", RC messes with our government a lot, so I've got a good perspective about it.
The Roman catholic church, being the largest christian denomination, does not embrace the modern evolutionary theory per se.
It embraces that evolution happened (macro, micro, every piece), but they believe it was guided by the "wisdom and mercy of the Lord
almighty".
Modern theory of evolution does not account for any deity, much less for a personal deity. The whole science doesn't, because it's not falsifiable and
testable, and it's not proven. In the world of science, these things are just as useful as any island ghosts and goblins that require sacrifices in
the form of pile of bananas.
Therefore, the scientific opinion, based on evidence and experiments, and RC opinion based on dogma, really do differ, but they overlap. In the Euler
diagram sense, they overlap greatly (though the new Pope is trying to radicalize the whole thing again, as I've heard), much, much more than other
denominations.
Small, fundamentalist congregations usually don't even come close to the scientific circle of Euler diagram.
[Edited on 2-12-2011 by Endimion17]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
bquirky:
Would you also make the same argument if the science involved was, say, quantum physics? Thought not...
There are strong similarities between American EB denial and American CC denial. In both cases the deniers perceive typical American 'values'
(Capitalism and Religion) to be under threat. That leads to entrenched positions. 'Sacred houses' that have to be defended at all cost.
It doesn’t strike you as odd that the resistance to EB and CC is so fierce mainly in the US? Regards EB denial, here in Europe that’s limited to a
few goofballs. I don’t really know of any religious blogs or even major publications that try and discredit EB in Europe. Almost the same with CC,
there are sceptics within the European public and scientific establishment but far fewer than in the US.
Explain also why opposition to CC started to emanate from certain parts of the US even WAY before the science had arrived at certain conclusions. Ask
yourself why these views are also far more embraced the more you move to the right of the American political spectrum? In Europe this is an almost 100
% cross partisan issue, with overwhelming acceptance of the science’s major conclusions by both sides of the aisle. So much so it practically puts
‘green parties’ out of business!
|
|
|
ScienceSquirrel
International Hazard
Posts: 1863
Registered: 18-6-2008
Location: Brittany
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dogs are pets but cats are little furry humans with four feet and self determination! 
|
|
I went to a Roman Catholic School, it is the minority religion in Jersey, and evolution was taught as fact without any religious overtones in biology.
We did national examinations, O and A levels, so they had to teach the syllabus.
The school did have a religious ethos, O level scripture was compulsory but the pass rate was terrible, A level was offered but no one took it while I
was there.
The UK lacks many features of US religious life. The Church of England is the dominant Christian faith but it is lacking in fervour. The evangelists
and charismatics are tiny sects, the antiabortion movement is tiny. There are no tele evangelists.
I suspect that because the US has no national church, a free market in religion exists and that allows all sorts of strange sects to thrive.
|
|
|
bquirky
Hazard to Others
Posts: 316
Registered: 22-10-2008
Location: Perth Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well QP makes testable predictions and is falsifiable
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
""It doesn’t strike you as odd that the resistance to EB and CC is so fierce mainly in the US? Regards EB denial, here in Europe that’s
limited to a few goofballs. I don’t really know of any religious blogs or even major publications that try and discredit EB in Europe.
Almost the same with CC, there are sceptics within the European public and scientific establishment but far fewer than in the US.""
It's not a fierce debate and I am starting to question ya'lls media as much as I question our own. It its nothing more then a few goofballs here
against EB yet it seems you folks in Europe have a totally different view of what its really like over here in the US. All we see and think when we
hear about Great Briton is stuffy people with top hats and suits drinking tea and talking about the weather... How much you wanna bet our media image
of GB is off 
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
Stuffy people with top hats? ROFL, I percieve GB through rock, punk, London tube, BBC, soccer, Scottish hills, city suburbs, Monty Python and "British
humor" that I like very much. 
I agree with blogfast25, fundamentalists are limited to few goofballs here in Europe, which don't have the public voice power. They are ignored, and
if they become too loud, ridiculed. The general public doesn't even think of considering their opinion. They're marginalized, unlike in the US where
"their opinion is also valid" and are given too much air time.
Too much political correctness leads to bullshit.
However, there are localized problems. I remember a great disturbance in our neighbour country, Serbia, a couple of years ago. Someone high in the
government considered banning the evolution from the biology curriculum. It was a failed attempt.
I'm sure lots of people in Europe are just as dumb as well, but there's a public opinion that's pro-science in the terms of evolution. Public opinion
is an emergent property of large masses of people in a system, and it's strong.
The point of evolution isn't just in the mere science. It has a sociological and philosophical impact, too. People are no longer unchangeable, static
masters, but part of the nature. If more of us understood that, the world would be a better place.
[Edited on 2-12-2011 by Endimion17]
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
This thread doesn't seem to be any more rigorous in practice than the other global warming thread, and about half of it is (predictably) politics.
This never ends well.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
|
Thread Closed
2-12-2011 at 11:54 |
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
