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: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
The purpose of this thread is: What do I mean by "peer review tyranny" and what effect does it have on science and technology?


My particular interest in peer review has to do with shutting out good people – the free thinkers and innovators – from the system.

But I quoted from the threads of three members who had posted in three different sub-forums - Education and Media, Science and Technology, and 9/11 Conspiracies.

The first quote emphasized the papers of Nobel Prize winners that were either rejected by peer review or did not go through the process of peer review. I guess one could call that “peer review irrelevance.”

The second quote emphasized opinion vs. fact. Maybe that could be called “peer review uncertainty.”

The third quote emphasized what is at stake when a reviewer peer reviews. Maybe that could be called “peer review conflict of interest.”

But it's all peer review tyranny if the end result is a procedure that is not working to safeguard scientific progress due to its absolute power.




posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: soundstyle
a reply to: peter vlar

it is suppose to protect from it.

what happens when there is NO peer review and yet we have so-called reviewed papers based on NON peer reviewed data?


First, publishing a paper is not in and of itself peer review, its one aspect of it. The publishing aspect is entirely irrelevant in the way you're trying to paint it. Just ask Einstein, general relativity was not peer reviewed initially. It was not until, I believe, 1915 that it was finally able to be properly tested but I digress...

What is the actual question here? What happens when the is no peer review?
Or
Are you asking my opinion about a peer reviewed paper that you claim was based on non peer reviewed science?


If its the first, see the above regarding general relativity

If its the second then your premise is again, irrelevant. The source material has no bearing , again in the context you are presenting, because the final paper is what is being peer reviewed. It won't pass review if the data its based on can't be properly replicated. It seems the issue you are taking is that nobody has peer reviewed any data that supports a position that you want it to support.





and that was found by the all important....."replication of data"....now what occurs when the "replication" is NOT allowed when claiming new science?

NO peer review of the science...but the science automatically goes to fact.


And some examples of this magic science that was never properly reviewed but somehow slips its way into the textbooks, hearts and minds of school children the world over would be...?


and then you have a plethora of so-called peer reviews based on that, NON replicated data pushed as fact?


Where exactly are you going with his Gish gallop? It's either been peer reviewed or it hasn't. Like I said earlier, put up or shut up because:

if scientist A writes paper 1 but doesn't publish it in a journal and releases it in his blog that isn't a paper that has been peer reviewed. It doesn't mean that the data is flawed though.

Scientist B. has read the data written in paper 1.Paper #1 has a similar basis to a project Scientist B has been working on. He checks it on his own and everything works. The next step is scientist B writes paper #2 which is at least in part, based on paper #1 or uses paper #1 to validate and corroborate data for his own research. Paper #2 is accepted for publishing in a journal. The data is reviewed by scientists #'s 4,5 & 6. They are all able to replicate the data and experiments that were written up in paper #2. Thus paper #2 has been peer reviewed and the data all holds up. This makes the non reviewed paper #1 irrelevant in the grand scheme of things with the exception of a lovely footnote in the bibliography of paper #2 giving credit where credit is due.





enter..."peer review tyranny".


More like Enter... Poster ignorance to how the system actually works because it doesn't blindly support their personal agenda or crusade.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




Poster ignorance


....to which you can't show at me....

I gave specifics before, and guess what, the comments were removed not cause they were wrong, but for certain words mentioned.

again since you are obviously ignoring my points and actual questions....I will repeat.

what is it called when one supplies so-called peer review reports based on an incident where the only investigating entity refuses to disclose their data variables making their claims so.


scientist 'A' is the only entity charged to investigate a situation occurring that NEEDS explanation.

scientist 'A' finishes, announces their claims/hypothesis, which contain the act of a brand new physics phenomenon unseen in taught science, yet, scientist 'A' refuses to show the data variables that make their claim so....specially when the data variables are all they have to show, NO physical evidence what-so-ever, and no like situations to compare with.


so, scientist 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F' do a peer review all based on the claim that is allowed to by-pass peer review, NOT the data variables that Scientist 'A' used in making their claim.


is this an acceptable way to push science?



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: soundstyle


...And the gish gallop continues. Good luck to you and hopefully someday, somewhere, somehow you will find the answers you need to fill that emptiness inside you.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: soundstyle


...And the gish gallop continues. Good luck to you and hopefully someday, somewhere, somehow you will find the answers you need to fill that emptiness inside you.


I take this to mean you refuse to respond to the direct question and intent of this thread....

thank you anyways for trying to help.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose




What bothers me the most about this is the level at which this is taking place



.......


I can't respond.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

Let's be honest here Mary Rose the real purpose of this thread is because a MOD asked people (including YOU) to stop posting questions about 9/11 on this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The title of the above thread "Ask any question you want about Physics"

Which was being spammed with 9/11 questions by a member who is now banned!!! and looks like he has rejoined under a new name. The OP made repeated request to everyone about posting of 9/11 questions because a quick search would have brought up those questions on a forum DEDICATED to 9/11.

We have many threads on here GENERATED purely because people DON'T understand a subject yet will believe any internet site as long it disagrees with the norm lets give one quick example.

The supposed Apollo Moon hoax now many supposed really clever people claimed they had proof because we see no stars in 99.999% of NASA's pictures now anyone with a knowledge of photography understands why, and a simple look at the camera settings and trying the same exposure settings at night here on Earth proves why it happens.

IT'S A REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT!!!

So if someone claims something of a SCIENTIFIC nature as being true they run the experiment to back their claims anyone else with the correct knowledge and equipment can duplicated to confirm the results.

So if anyone claims a breakthrough they should HAVE to and be ABLE to prove it anything else and they are just being snake oil salesmen.

There is no TYRANNY there.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




IT'S A REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT!!!


ONLY by REPLICATION....

which is the ONLY way a proper peer review can proceed.

how does 'Scientist B' perform a peer review to replicate the SAME procedures as Scientist 'A', when Scientist 'A' refuses to release the data needed for replication?



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: soundstyle


ASK BOB


In the example I gave above the settings for the NASA pictures were on the film backs SO even YOU could go and do it with any camera that had manual control it's not rocket science.

If you are making a claim re a discovery YOU WOULD detail how you arrived at the conclusion so that OTHERS could replicate it!!!!!
edit on 10-8-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-8-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: soundstyle

Just because you don't know how another person reached their conclusion doesn't mean that it is impossible to recreate the work Independently. Convergent work occurs all the time in science. People in similar disciplines can be in completely different countries working on the same problem and reach the same conclusions without sharing their data.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Mary Rose

Let's be honest here Mary Rose the real purpose of this thread is because a MOD asked people (including YOU) to stop posting questions about 9/11 on this thread.


No, the real purpose of this thread is that I introduced a term "peer review tyranny" in relation to alternative scientists and inventors who are ridiculed because they don't have, because they can't get published, a peer-reviewed paper to cite, spelling out their findings.

The issue concerning a report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology came later, on the same thread on which I coined the term.

The member posting on that issue is attempting to ask pertinent questions about brand new science which has been presented to the world by NIST. Additionally, this brand new science is not supported by peer review because of their refusal to release relevant data.

Besides that, the peer-reviewed papers based on the new science coming out of NIST make no sense because they're just perpetuating the unsupported new science, while claiming to have gone through the hurdles of true peer-review.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: soundstyle

Just because you don't know how another person reached their conclusion doesn't mean that it is impossible to recreate the work


maybe you should actually look at the meaning of peer review.....never mind, I will post it for you.

Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.



it seems you are suggesting not to do the very thing NECESSARY for a true peer review........"you want to to leave out the data"...






working on the same problem and reach the same conclusions without sharing their data



sure...and they all have a basis of understanding between them in order to achieve their goal.
they use the same formulas, agreed upon science, and know where their limits lie.

now, tell me bout the one whom claims they discovered a NEW science but refuses to show to the rest.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: soundstyle


The shorter reply would have been to say you don't understand the concept of convergent research instead of putting words in my mouth and then trying to correct your own misunderstanding if what I wrote because I am in no way at all suggestion what you have attributed to me.

I tried. You're a troll. Best of luck to you and your bridge.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: soundstyle

Howdy,

I'm a bit confused. You seem to be arguing for the importance of peer review/academic review.

Are you saying that peer review is a good thing except when it says what someone claims is science isn't actually science? This is a bit like arguing that you want police officers to arrest criminals except when you are the criminal. I'm not very versed in philosophy (or at all, actually...) but this similar to a case of special pleading.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

I think the basis of the posters claim is that there was data relating to 9/11 that is being passed off as an accepted scientific fact without actually being peer reviewed, thus it is an appropriate example of the tyranny of the peer review process because later papers were written using this unquantifiable fact as a citation, thus the entire system is flawed.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Howdy,

Thanks for the clarification.
I'd have completely missed that.

I'm not very well versed in the 9/11 conspiracy, so I suppose my assessments until this point have been exclusive of that information, which would certainly make them less meaningful.

I cannot argue over the conspiracy, but I can say that the situation you describe sounds more like a problem of side-stepping peer review. Certainly, give a scientist false data to work with and they will have no choice but to figure out a working and plausible story/conclusion from that data. It isn't the fault of peer review, but rather the lack of it. That isn't a scientist's fault either, though.

This doesn't demonstrate tyranny, nor does it demonstrate a fault in the peer review process. This problem is one of faulty data, if true. Seeing as I don't know specifically what data is being argued against here, I would assume data provided by government agencies. Although not ideal, you work with the data you get and unless there were other measurements made independently at the time, you have to use that which is given to you to either falsify or validate the story you have been given.

Again, if this is the case, I fail to see the tyranny here. I can't believe it has taken this many pages for me to figure out that this was an argument about 9/11 data...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

You link to a 9/11 thread from 2010 but before that lets try something.

If I gave you 3 apples and 1 orange and said I gave you 4 apples what would you tell me?

I would hope to assume you would tell me there were only 3 apples there!

What If I insistead there was 4 what would you do?

I would think you would compare the colour size etc of the orange to the apples.

What if I still insisted it was an apple.

I would like to think you would cut an apple and orange open to show the difference, if I then insistead it was still and apple the texture and taste would show the difference.

So why do SO many people on here NOT except construction of buildings can be very different and you have to compare like with like!!!!

From your 9/11 link in your OP


originally posted by: MagoSA

So - to 9/11 theory. empirically, these building collapses were the first three due to fire with skyscraper technology. Hell, even the Empire State Building survived a crash with a plane (not the same size, but with minimal and no structural compromise).


The first line is WRONG it ignores the damage done by the aircraft impact/ and damge to WTC 7 but to the web truthers that doesn't count.

Then the Empire State Building crash is mentioned but then they state there was not the same size of aircraft or structural damage, why mention it then.


The Empire State Building has masonry walls, thicker concrete floors is not open plan or a tube in tube design like the WTC Towers, the floors are not suspened on angle cleats either. It's the Orange to the Towers Apples

Yet what she failed to mention is that the far smaller SLOWER plane did cause some problems.


One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive



Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.



The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million.


Why not mention that did they KNOW about /or did the DELIBERATELY not mention it


That's the problem with 9/11 and to be honest lots of other conspiracy theories thanks to the net the world of armchair experts with NO experience or QUALIFICATIONS on a subject can re-quote BS by other people who know squat about the subject as well.


edit on 11-8-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11




Are you saying that peer review is a good thing except when it says what someone claims is science isn't actually science?


that is what the 'peer review' system is for...to 'weed' out the frauds.

but doesn't work too well when they are all frauds.

......if Scientist 'A' wants to claim...."the phenomenon that we saw that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

then Scientist 'A' MUST prove this NEW form of thermal expansion that works at LOW TEMPS by offering peer review of the data and procedures used to arrive at that claim. in turn, others REPLICATE the same procedures using the SAME data variables to see if they get the SAME results...then if they do, a paper gets published and this new form of physics gets introduced to the science community.

so your analogy is incorrect.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




that is being passed off as an accepted scientific fact without actually being peer reviewed



well, you're correct so far....




thus it is an appropriate example of the tyranny of the peer review process because later papers were written using this unquantifiable fact as a citation



and it seems you can still get some things right......





thus the entire system is flawed.


oh there ya go, blaming the entire system. Sorry but ya can't blame it on a flawed system when there is direct evidence of those whom refuse to use the system to begin with.




top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join