It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Peer Review Tyranny

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: hydeman11

I propose that the topic be discussed perhaps in another thread.

Meanwhile, my main message is:


Peer review should not be cited as a requirement before something can be discussed in the Science and Technology forum, nor should it be used as a weapon to shoot down posts made by members who explore alternative science and technology.


There is no such thing as "alternate science." The scientific method applies to all endeavors. "Alternate science" is usually the label that people give themselves when their conclusion or theory does not stand up to objective scrutiny or the scientific method.




posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
"Alternate science" is usually the label that people give themselves when their conclusion or theory does not stand up to objective scrutiny or the scientific method.

I disagree.

I often find the most objective content coming out of the mouths of the alternative science community.

And the most dogmatic from mainstream science.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: NavyDoc
"Alternate science" is usually the label that people give themselves when their conclusion or theory does not stand up to objective scrutiny or the scientific method.

I disagree.

I often find the most objective content coming out of the mouths of the alternative science community.

And the most dogmatic from mainstream science.


Really? "OMG medical conspiracy hiding the benefits of (fill in whatever they are selling)" papers are objective?

Again, there is no such thing as "alternative science." IF they use the scientific method, even if they are a plumber, then that is science. If they are not, then that is not science.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
what you call 'peer review tyranny' is just a small part of bigger problem, called: corruption of science

google: corruption of science

you will find some interesting articles

that said, the corruption is infesting peer review too:

online.wsj.com...




Academic publishing was rocked by the news on July 8 that a company called Sage Publications is retracting 60 papers from its Journal of Vibration and Control, about the science of acoustics. The company said a researcher in Taiwan and others had exploited peer review so that certain papers were sure to get a positive review for placement in the journal. In one case, a paper's author gave glowing reviews to his own work using phony names.


read more at the link...

my point is: scientists are people and people are easily corrupted

also, I am amazed that so many people blindly believe everything scientists say without checking the facts (similar to what religious people do)...
edit on 30-7-2014 by donhuangenaro because: ...



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: donhuangenaro

Checking the facts IS peer review. Peer review isn't about just getting your article published. It's about others reviewing your material and making sure it is up to snuff. Some journals are more reputable than others, and yes scientists are people too. That is why you review their work regardless of the other reviews on the paper. Clearly the peer review process is working if the questionable papers are being removed and discredited. Why do so many people misunderstand this? Peer review isn't an instant process. Yes bad crap filters through, but through the application of peer review we will eventually discard that crap.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

well, good luck with that...

the corruption of science is so bad today, you don't really know what is really reviewed and what is 'crap'...

in the mean time, I remain skeptical about science




posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: donhuangenaro

Well I'd say that most established science has been peer reviewed rather thoroughly. Where you will run into problems is for studies done on cutting edge science. Being skeptical of science is a good thing, but to discount all of science because some research may be fraudulent is a bad way to go about doing things.

Would you prefer it if there was no checks on research and any yahoo is able to publish a paper with any questionable methods and conclusions? Because I think the system we have now is FAR superior to the free-for-all that would occur without it.
edit on 30-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Checking the facts IS peer review.

And exactly the opposite is what actually happens...


Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health. Lawyers destroy justice. Universities destroy knowledge. Governments destroy freedom. The major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality. ~ Michael Ellner


The whole Peer review system is riddled with corruption and instead of doing what it says it does, it is used instead to promote rampant fraud.


originally posted by: CircleOfDust
Here's some good info on your Religion of today called Science. From Michael Chrichton's book Next.

If we ever needed evidence that peer review is an empty ritual, this episode provides it. Many studies have shown that peer review does not improve the quality of scientific papers. Scientists themselves know it doesn‘t work. Yet the public still regards it as a sign of quality, and says, This paper was peer-reviewed,‘ or ;This paper was not peer-reviewed,‘ as if that meant something. It doesn‘t.

Many studies have shown that peer review does not improve the quality of scientific papers. Scientists themselves know it doesn't work. Yet the public still regards it as a sign of quality... as if that meant something. It doesn't. The whole concept of scientific "peer review" is suspect. Peer review has not been and never has been a meaningful gauge of the validity of scientific conclusions. It has been hijacked to stifle debate and filter out conclusions that disagree with a particular dogma. To a real scientist it is meaningless.

What Would We Do Without Peer Review?

Regarding peer-reviews, more often than not, they’re a racket to keep new ideas out of circulation. No one has a bigger stake in the existing knowledge than tenured professors, and when new evidence comes forward that discredits the old opinions, the establishment fights hard against it. Source

"...peer review is nothing more than a political arrangement for research workers, like a guild or union. It's goal is to keep control over their field, suppress the competition, and assure continued cash flow. It has nothing to do with science, the systematic search for truth, which must not be tainted by financial motives or tempted by personal gain."

Corrupted Research - Exposing the Peer Review Process

Despite its importance as the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific publication and funding, peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system. How to Fix Peer Review

Scientific fraud, however, is rampant amongst nearly all of the sciences and no "peer review" is immune. In fact, peer review is the problem. This brings into question the so-called scientific process of peer review that is often cited as if it were holy writ and the end-all, be-all of truth. "It`s peer reviewed," they scream when anyone questions their research or evidence. The rejoinder should ask, "Peer reviewed by whom?"

The blame lies in the way that science is conducted with all other reasons emanating from this core paradigm change. Peer review, however, has no such requirements. It is merely the opinion of the reviewing scientists who read the original work and give an editorial on it. No tests or double-checking of facts or methods are required. Basically, with peer review, someone writes a study paper and it is then sent to a group of scientific critics to either blast or praise it. Professor Charlton is right. Peer review is bunk and is just editorializing in the name of science. It is because of this practice that the rampant fraud and misleading conclusions of scientific research is so prevalent today.

The Scientific Fraud Pandemic: Few Honest Scientists Remain


(post by Krazysh0t removed for a manners violation)
(post by GetHyped removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Sigh... Since the last response was removed for being too abrasive, I'll try again. You denounce peer review based on a few bad apples pretending like that is indicative of the whole. There is no correlation there and your conclusion isn't supported by your premises. Your position is flawed.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You denounce peer review based on a few bad apples pretending like that is indicative of the whole.


It's not a few bad apples.

It's the norm in today's reality.

Let's analyze the article previously posted:


originally posted by: Mary Rose
Here's one article: "Is the Peer Review Process for Scientific Papers Broken?"



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

First that is an opinion piece so it isn't evidence of anything. Second, that is for cutting edge technology. Third, I've already said multiple times in this thread that getting your paper published is only a small part of the peer review process.

That author of the article clearly doesn't understand how the peer review process works if she thinks that getting your paper published in a reputable journal is the end all be all of the peer review process. Once the paper is published, scientists can STILL and DO review the paper to make sure that it holds up to scrutiny and didn't get published due to corrupt practices. The very fact that those papers were discovered to be flawed and got published under questionable reasons is a TESTAMENT to the fact that peer review is working.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Mary Rose
First that is an opinion piece so it isn't evidence of anything.

Of course it is an opinion piece. Your post is an opinion piece, as well. So is mine. We're here to discuss honest opinions. What's the problem?

It's not supposed to be evidence of anything, as in a scientific paper. It's supposed to be a chronicle of what's going on in the scientific community.

This thread is about the tyranny in mainstream science raged against those who challenge the system, which is what we all should do all the time to keep people honest.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

I know what an opinion is. But if you want to prove a point, you need statistics and evidence. NOT opinions and anecdotes. That is the crap that peer review weeds out. I tried to prove that point to you when I first started talking to you on page 2, but I guess you didn't get what I was getting at.

Like I said, peer review is working. It is weeding out the poor papers that got published under questionable reasons. Nothing is perfect, but this is certainly better than a free-for-all which seems to be what you want. I'm glad we don't have a free-for-all. Most alternative science (read: psuedo-science) starts with an assumption (such and such exists) then develops evidence to support that conclusion. If you are mad that a pet paper you like isn't up for peer review, that MAY be a reason why scientists have snubbed it. Try taking off your confirmation bias and looking at it objectively for flaws. I'm sure you'll find them.

ETA: For instance, without peer review, that factually unsupported statement you made earlier in this thread (people who are self-taught are more intellectually curious than university taught people) would be held up as just as credible as a detailed paper on gravitational lensing. And we can't have that. Your statement is just a personal anecdote and the other paper is detailed in its methodology trying to weed out as many assumptions as possible. I'm sorry this upsets you, but standards need to be met.
edit on 31-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But if you want to prove a point, you need statistics and evidence.


Not the type of subject matter this thread is about, you don't.

And you don't prove the point of this thread, you give your reasons.

Your reasoning sounds like scientism.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Like I said, peer review is working.

So is the MSM, government, wars, religion, law enforcement, education, and medicine, etc.


It's clearly obvious who it's working FOR...


Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down.


For some, there is NO amount of proof that will change their beliefs.

The bottom line is that there is no proof that will satisfy you so you will continue to believe whatever it is that you believe.

Like the post below says...


originally posted by: MagicWand67
If you don't see it. It doesn't mean it isn't there. If you want the proof you will need to seek the truth and find it for yourself. No one can convince you of something you are in denial about. You must learn the truth on your own. It seems clear to me that your agenda is not to seek the truth. Instead you seek to support your existing belief system and to deny what you do not want to be real. You are still just following orders like a good soldier. Whether you realize it or not.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Say what you want about my beliefs, it doesn't change the fact that your argument isn't sound and tries to paint a picture of the industry as a whole by using a few choice examples. Like I said, you failed to make a correlation between the few bad apples and the entire industry. All you've proven is that a few times, a bad paper slips through the cracks and is published in a journal. Then you indirectly proved that peer review is working since those papers have been outed as fraudulent.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

What subject matter are you referring to? I'm kinda lost here... I thought we were discussing issues with peer review as a process... If you don't provide statistics showing failure rates or evidence supporting your claim, what am I supposed to talk to you about? My feelings about peer review? My opinion?

Feelings and opinions have no relevance to truth, as you have even argued for in this thread. It is the opinion of experts that is at fault in the peer review process, it is their biased opinion, right? I agree. Remove all matters of feeling and opinion from peer review.

Your reasoning, in my opinion, sounds contradictory and I must ask for further clarification.

Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But if you want to prove a point, you need statistics and evidence.


Not the type of subject matter this thread is about, you don't.


Oh? So this is a thread where you can make any old claim and not have to back it up with facts and evidence?


And you don't prove the point of this thread, you give your reasons.


With this I agree. There is no point to this thread except to complain that your pet science theories aren't taken seriously by real science. You haven't offered any sort of valid counter-system to replace the peer review system. And your argument is exactly the same as Murgatroid's argument. A few bad apples that slipped through the cracks during the publication phase of peer review, but then got outed when people actually DID peer review their work. Which proves that peer review is working. But even if it didn't you never established a correlation between those few bad apples and the entirety of the industry. Where is the statistical sampling to suggest that this is a widespread issue? There isn't any.

Here you are deflecting and trying to pretend that a bold claim like "the peer review process is corrupt" doesn't require evidence, when such a statement DOES require evidence. Because if it is true, it highlights a serious problem with how we go about acquiring knowledge and the last thing we want to do is be overly flawed in that approach (it is impossible to have no flaws in any approach, but the idea is to minimize them). So if you make that claim, you DAMN well better have some good evidence to back it up and not just a few examples followed by an opinion article from a newspaper.


Your reasoning sounds like scientism.


Scientism is a made up word from people who don't know how real science works and who don't like that their pet theories are called pseudo-science and ignored by mainstream science. I tend to tune people out and not take them seriously when they use that "word".



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join