Yeah, I agree with you
Here some more to add to yours
Peer reviewed stuff is ALWAYS better than non-reviewed stuff...
Science has received an increasingly tainted name because of recent high profile cases of alleged scientific misconduct. Once considered the results of work stress or a temporary mental health problem, scientific misconduct is increasingly being reported and proved to be a repeat offence. How should scientific misconduct be handled—is it a criminal offence and subject to national or international law? Similarly plagiarism is an ever-increasing concern whether at the level of the student or a university president. Are the existing laws tough enough? These issues, with appropriate examples, are dealt with in this review.
Media coverage of these events has suggested that high-profile journals encourage scientific fraud by cutting corners in peer review or by overruling referees to publish newsworthy results. Although it is understandable to conclude that, by accepting a paper, a journal's editors confer their authority to the findings and that, therefore, a portion of the responsibility for the work shifts from the author to the editor, we do not agree that the peer review system can or should detect deliberate fraud.
Over the past 12 years, anesthesiologist Scott Reuben revolutionized the way physicians provide pain relief to patients undergoing orthopedic surgery for everything from torn ligaments to worn-out hips. Now, the profession is in shambles after an investigation revealed that at least 21 of Reuben's papers were pure fiction, and that the pain drugs he touted in them may have slowed postoperative healing.
Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by Klassified
There are always exceptions, and for the most part such misconduct is exposed, hence the articles above are highly reputable magazines or online publications exposing hoaxes. 100% integrity is nowhere found in any human institution, but peer-reviewed journals are without a doubt the most credible sources of information.
Originally posted by KlassifiedNo. All sources should not be treated equally. I agree one should read or attempt to understand both sides of an argument thoroughly and then arrive at an opinion. But if one source is from the harvard genetics department, and the other is "ih8evolution.com", or "thecreationblog.wordpress.biz," these sources should not be treated equally. There is no valid argument against the evolutionary synthesis of differential reproduction.
My point is that all sources should be considered equally until enough evidence is in to reach a verdict in ones own mind.
Originally posted by Klassified
To me, opposing views to that box should be equally considered until such time as evidence against them overwhelms them.
There is no valid argument against the evolutionary synthesis of differential reproduction.
Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by uva3021
Then what you're telling me is that "ih8evolution.com", or "thecreationblog.wordpress.biz," cannot have a valid stance because they are biased. But our academia can have a valid stance, even though they also can have bias, as well as a conflict of interest, depending on who is funding their research.
Bottom line. All I'm trying to say here, is that we live in an age of big government and corporate interest in what is presented to the public in media, and in print. This creates a problem for all scientists, honest or not. Because it creates a conflict of interest.