by FreeAtLast1914 126 Replies latest jw friends
cantleave,
you can't seriously believe that the peer review process furthers the search for truth? It does not further the search for truth, it stifles it. Existing dogma is defended tooth and nail. Attempts to do things outside the "established theories" are shouted down and their proponents discredited.
Mainstream science is as dishonest and corrupt as any other big bureaucracy.
Below is a comment from the Free Software Magazine
One the mantras repeated ad nauseam by the CRU and the IPCC is that everything is beyond reproach because all the science is peer reviewed. Superficially, that seems plausible until you actually examine what they mean by this phrase. Even before the leaked files and e-mails grave concerns were being raised about the way the science was being done. The leaks have confirmed the worst suspicions. Social network analysis reveals that the whole process was in fact thoroughly incestuous with CRU/IPCC scientists peer reviewing each other’s papers and ensuring the exclusion of anything critical of the orthodox consensus. This simply cannot happen in the open source community because all information is free and freely available. Attempts to collude and or exclude leads only to projects forking and taking new and potentially creative directions. Yes, it can be a bit of a fractious jumble but freedom is a happy mess. Exasperating as it can be, fragmentation can often be freedom’s best defense.
The author is anonymous to the reviewer and the reviewer is anonymous to the author. That’s the way to do it
What is required is the wholesale adoption of the standards applied in the pharmaceutical industry drug trials: double blind trials (aka peer reviewing). The author is anonymous to the reviewer and the reviewer is anonymous to the author. There is no possibility of complicity to reinforce each other and at a the same time prevent the exclusion of any other climate research which does not fit the “consensus”. That’s the way to do it. As things stand though, the average member of the public hasn’t the faintest idea what peer reviewed science is or how it operates and the CRU and the IPCC exploit that massive ignorance. Even if the process was wholly open and transparent it would not benefit the proverbial passenger on the Clapham omnibus—but it would benefit those with the necessary experience, expertise and training to bench test the claims, methods and data sources of climate scientists.
I have to differ with HappyGuy on this: true peer review is all about finding unintentional errors in a scientific finding.
It is NOT about rubber-stamping something that is questionable. The recent climate-gate papers or emails reveal the fact that they were trying to AVOID real peer-review: they were trying to cherry-pick the reviewers to be people who already agreed with their ideas. That is not real science.
Like it or not, true science has resulted in a great abundance of technical advancement and the fact that these things work (for moral good or bad, BTW) - but the fact they WORK is proof that the science eventually worked itself out into true facts.
In comparison, religious thought has been stagnant or even retrograding itself for all the recorded centuries.
Happyguy, I appreciate what you are saying, but the very aspect of the review process you are highlighting, means that new research should conducted in a robust way to withstand the voices of the luddites. I do not believe that the search for truth is stifled if it is conducted properly and the conclusions are robust. Sometimes rash early conclusions are stifled but that is not a bad thing, it allows for the re-examination of the initial conclusion, and ensures that further research is undertaken to provide further supportive evidence for confirmation purposes.
I think we might be hijacking this thread a little
Good point, CantLeave - but is it possible that as the bible literalists cannot answer obvious scientific error recorded there, they may be attacking modern science as their best course of argument?
Pretty silly, in fact, if you just look around you and see our standard of life today versus historical bible times.
Jwoods the fact that bible literalists dismiss archeological evidence if it doesn't conform to their world view would indicate they are interested in the search for truth. "If ain't in the bible it must be from Satan, that is the attitude what really stifles human endeavour.
If conducted properly by the publication of academic papers, in the appropriate literature
I guess you didn't read the links I provided above. Who decides what is 'proper" who decides what is "apppropriate literature". The climate gate scandal showed how data that is in disagreement with orthodoxy was eliminated in the peer-review process. Publications that don't tow the line are demonized. These are facts. Peer Review and funding processes provides ample room for deception. How could it be otherwise?
The "climategate" scandal was nothing to do with peer review
Are you kidding? Where have you been the last few weeks?
Archeology Proves the Bible:
http://www.dawnbible.com/booklets/archeology.htm
Ordinary cuneiform writing became quite general in the early ages. Thousands of clay tablets have been found which, according to the archeologists, were written before the Patriarchal Age. More than a quarter of a million cuneiform clay tablets have been distributed among the various museums of the world. This writing technique was used, not only for keeping family and business records, but also to communicate information on very ordinary matters to distant friends and relatives.
It will be noted that the records pertaining to pre-Flood days are much more brief than those of the post-Flood period. This would seem to indicate—and this is not surprising—that the early art of writing was not so well-developed as it became in later times. In any case, we rejoice that archeologists have furnished us with this additional evidence of the validity of the first thirty-six chapters of Genesis.
This complete online book I found reasonable, more than any Jehovah’s Witnesses writing.
The recent climate-gate papers or emails reveal the fact that they were trying to AVOID real peer-review: they were trying to cherry-pick the reviewers to be people who already agreed with their ideas. That is not real science.
JWoods,
Anyone with eyes can see that this was true in this case as you describe.
So, how do you know the same corruption is not institutionally in place in other disciplines?
