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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Checking the facts IS peer review.
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
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 Yet the public still regards it as a sign of quality, and says, This paper was peer-reviewed,‘ or ;This paper was not peer-reviewed,‘ as if that meant something.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
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You denounce peer review based on a few bad apples pretending like that is indicative of the whole.
originally posted by: Mary Rose
Here's one article: "Is the Peer Review Process for Scientific Papers Broken?"
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Mary Rose
First that is an opinion piece so it isn't evidence of anything.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But if you want to prove a point, you need statistics and evidence.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Like I said, peer review is working.
Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down.
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.
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.
And you don't prove the point of this thread, you give your reasons.
Your reasoning sounds like scientism.