Peer Review Tyranny

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: GetHyped

No, addressing the person and perceived motivation is illogic.

You mean addressing someone's argument? That's "illogical" to you?

And I provided a good example.
Or do you deny that people do that?

An example of what?

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: peter vlar

Give me an actual example of this happening. I can't comment on a "what if?!"

People do spiteful stuff like this all the time.
Scientists are not exempt from being human.

Random anecdotes and personal opinion is not actually an example of a hypothesis bypassing peer review and becoming an accepted fact. It's not even alluding to anything resembling a fact.

a reply to: peter vlar

It would seem that the proponents of this thread don't like having their claims "peer reviewed" for factual validity.

a reply to: GetHyped

The whole thing has drifted into obscurity once discussing 9/11 became verboten. The original intent was never actually to discuss the merits of peer review, it was to bash the process because it doesn't cowtow to what they want to believe as opposed to seeing where the facts and data actually lead.

a reply to: peter vlar

Oh so your claiming people don't then.

a reply to: peter vlar

Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.

A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough.

Just because they are truthers doesn't mean they don't have a point.

I love just how much silly idealistic positivism goes into some people's viewpoints.
The process of Peer Review is every bit as game-able or breakable as democracy.
Because it is people who are maintaining the process.
Just the pool of people who can game it is smaller.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Enough beating around the bush, let's see some evidence for claims instead.

Cases in point:

Nepotism and sexism in peer-review

The invisible hand of peer review

a reply to: GetHyped

Must not get out much do you?
But then again, the activities of you and your friends stand as proof as well.
You give yourself a pass, of course, but that only proves my point.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
Cases in point:

Nepotism and sexism in peer-review

The invisible hand of peer review

my question pertaining to these documents,
were they written by individuals who hypothesis was rejected ?

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Howdy,

I generally agree that any system built upon humans making decisions is inherently flawed to some degree.

That said, your first citation is for peer-review for post-doctorates, not peer-reviewed articles. And your second source is a less than scientific web article from 1998 that says there is a problem with human error, but also acknowledges that there is not a better system. It is true that there are citations at the bottom of the page to scientific sources, but the claim that the peer reviewers' are biased is not one of the cited things, so it too is just opinion. (Read opinion as not substantiated by scientific study.) That said, a lot of the citations made in that article are from the author's previous works, which makes me uncomfortable, but does not reflect so poorly on the author.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: peter vlar

Oh so your claiming people don't then..

I'm not claiming anything, I asked for examples, you gave an anecdotal personal opinion. That's a fact not a claim.

a reply to: peter vlar

Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.

A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough.

Just because they are truthers doesn't mean they don't have a point.

I love just how much silly idealistic positivism goes into some people's viewpoints.
The process of Peer Review is every bit as game-able or breakable as democracy.
Because it is people who are maintaining the process.
Just the pool of people who can game it is smaller.

Interesting point of view. There's no idealism in what I'm saying though. I don't follow my emotions, I follow the evidence and the data. I'm not saying that because someone has a different point of view than mine they they don't have a valid point. I'm saying they need to support the point and that if you want to discuss 9/1 there is a forum for that discussion. That forum however is not this particular one. It's a pretty simple concept to grasp. I've said this a million times now, I'm a human being and thus fallible. Demonstrate legitimate evidence and I'm always happy to admit I'm wrong because at the end of the day I'd prefer to learn from my experiences rather than stand on a soap box pontificating. I have yet to see the evidence, only anecdotal rants.

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Howdy,

I generally agree that any system built upon humans making decisions is inherently flawed to some degree.

the flawed element in anything is the human element.
no matter how much whining is done, this will never change, this is humanity.

the human race ceased to develop, it struggles for petty comfort and false security, there is no time for thought.
soon there will be no time for reasoning, and man will lose sight of the truth.
your reality is a prison.
you have been invaded and enslaved.
seek only to know yourselves and live in harmony with the ways of your planet earth.
may you be blessed by the supreme love and truth of the cosmos.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Yay... OpEd hit pieces.

The sad thing is that Christine Wennerås has actually done some really good work pertaining to immune system defense responses in immunocompromised patients but she is far more known for beating this same dead horse since the mid 90's

Agnes Wold suddenly stopped beating that Same horse after January of this year when her team developed a vaccine against allergies that works by stimulating the immune system with a bacterial protein she developed from an intestinal bacteria she found while studying inflammatory bowel disease.

So essentially, they were both bitter that their research wasnt grtting the recognition they thought they deserved and as soon as one of them got that pat on the back they no longer preached about sexism in peer review.

Harnads article is 16 years old, that was really the best you could come up with?

a reply to: peter vlar

You're absolutely in love with poisoning the well aren't you?
Again, further "proof".

a reply to: peter vlar

There's no idealism in what I'm saying though.

Just about as silly as if I said there is no words in this comment.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

You sound like someone who's just picked up a pamphlet on logical fallacies but does not appear to understand the validity of logic and when a fallacy is actually committed. If his post said something like "Person X is a convicted sex offender therefore we shouldn't listen to what she has to say on peer-review" that would be poisoning the well because there is no link between the premise and the conclusion. Pointing out that someone who is butthurt that their research did not take off in the scientific community therefore we should be skeptical of their motivations for bashing peer-review is not a logical fallacy.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Can't poison a well that I already know better than to drink from. I'm sorry that actual facts bother you so much. But I'm not going to put something down that I can't back up with facts. The only things its proof of is that we don't see eye to eye on this point and you're really reaching by digging up a 16 or 17 year old article to support your OPINION.

a reply to: peter vlar

I'm not claiming anything, I asked for examples, you gave an anecdotal personal opinion. That's a fact not a claim.

I gave PERFECT examples of not only manipulation, but direct complicity from within to misdirect the intent of a peer reviewed situation..

and you......

I follow the evidence and the data.

...you had it DELETED so you wouldn't have to address it..


the post was well within a scientific context of discussion and WITHIN scope of this thread.....and that was the problem huh.

tell me all about so-called peer reviewed papers whom are ALL based on NON peer reviewed data......and what is the scope of their validity?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: peter vlar

It would seem that the proponents of this thread don't like having their claims "peer reviewed" for factual validity.

it would seem that when it's done,

the overseers DELETE it so no one can respond.

a reply to: peter vlar

*facepalm*

Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable, or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.

Logical Form:

Adverse information (be it true or false) about person 1 is presented.
Therefore, the claim(s) of person 1 will be false.

I didn't know people had changed in the time frame mentioned.

No, your attitude that you will now deny, is proof.
You're continually relying on rhetoric *poisoning the well, ad hom* and repeatedly asking for proof on anything.
Is proof.
"The sky is blue." "I WANT PROOF!!!! SHOW ME TEH PROOF!!111111oneoneoneoneonetybbq"

And I can't believe I am siding with truthers......