Peer Review Tyranny

a reply to: hydeman11

Feelings and opinions have no relevance to truth...

Feelings and opinions are not the issue.

This is about fraud, bias, and corruption...

Scientific fraud, however, is rampant amongst nearly all of the sciences and no "peer review" is immune...

Feelings and opinions have no relevance to truth... Remove all matters of feeling and opinion from peer review.

Sounds wonderful, wheres that suggestion box again?

a reply to: Murgatroid

I was asking Mary Rose specifically to clarify, but I don't mind sharing my opinions and feelings with you either.

If this were a matter of widespread fraud, bias, and corruption, then there would be evidence. A lot of evidence. Now, I certainly agree that there have been examples, and rather recently, of problems with peer review. For instance, that one acoustics magazine that was having issues with the guy fraudulently posing as respected scientists in the field. That was caught by further review, so the process corrected its mistake.

You keep providing quotes and quotes, in your case, those quotes often show nothing more than opinions. Not facts. Can you quote for me the statistics of how many journals post fraudulent articles and don't retract them later?

And speaking of quotes, why did you select those bits to quote? It very much appears that you are taking my words out of context and cherry picking... Obviously I said feelings and opinions should not be what is discussed.

I also obviously agree that there are issues of personal bias in peer review, but that we should also strive to minimize this. Any good scientist already does so. It would certainly be absurd to think anything built by humans was not inherently flawed by human flaws...

A lot of what I am saying to you has already been said. Have you read Krazysh0t's responses and ignored them?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: hydeman11
I was asking Mary Rose specifically to clarify, but I don't mind sharing my opinions and feelings with you either.

You keep providing quotes and quotes, in your case, those quotes often show nothing more than opinions. Not facts. Can you quote for me the statistics of how many journals post fraudulent articles and don't retract them later?

FYI: you and Mary aren't the only ones reading this...

If you need some help with those statistics, you may want to look into getting a secretary.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Absolutely, it's a free forum and I respect and appreciate all opinions. I was just specifically asking for clarification from her on her point of view. Please do not be offended, I didn't mean to exclude anyone, and as I said, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Now about that secretary... You made a claim. Logically, you must support that claim. It is your "burden" so they say.

Let me show you why it is important to provide evidence when you make a claim... I can make the claim that all Murgatroids are blue spacemen sent from the planet Zelphabarts to steal our brains. Here, have this quote that I've found to back it up.

"Sure, it's a well known fact that all Murgatroids are blue spacemen from Zelphabarts. We know why they're here. They want our brains. It's a pervasive problem..." -Some Randomguy

Your quotes, without further support, seem as ridiculous as my own surely must (Okay, less ridiculous, but certainly this demonstrates the limited power of a quotation...). Now, do remember, neither you or I can disprove that Murgatroids are blue spacemen(...) without other evidence, so stopping here without supporting your position is both silly and pointless.

Please, I want to discuss this issue, I want to know of problems if they exist. If you have any evidence that they do exist on the large scale that you claim, give me some evidence.

Regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: hydeman11
What subject matter are you referring to?

This thread grew out of another thread.

In the other thread this was addressed to me after I commented that "Science is hard, isn't it?" I was amused at the tone the thread had at the time. Actually that thread started because I insisted on another thread of mine to stop being used as a dumping ground for every question under the sun about physics:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Mary Rose
Science is hard work, isn't it?

It depends, some science experiments are simple. Buddasystem and I tried to get you to spend $5 on materials like a multimeter to do a scientific test of the claims you were promoting about electrical resistance. Both Buddhasystem and I had done the experiment, and yes it was easy to do. But you refused to do it, apparently instead preferring to spend $20 on a DVD making false claims which you could then post without testing them yourself.

It's really not that hard to do simple science like that experiment to measure electrical resistance. Running experiments at the LHC is another story, since it's much harder to do. I suppose hypothesizing untestable hypotheses like multiverses is easier, because if the hypotheses are untestable, we can't test them meaning it's less work.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

To which I replied:

“False claims” is simply your opinion – nothing more.

How I spend my money is irrelevant.

DVDs are superb educational tools. They also allow people who are shut out by mainstream science, with their peer review tyranny, to communicate with the world.

The Science and Technology forum is about cutting edge science. Members are not required to do experiments before posting in it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The point of the expression "peer review tyranny" is that innovators are shut out of the system by not being allowed to publish in peer reviewed journals.

It's the innovators I'm interested in. The ones who don't go along to get along.

Again, this is really what I'm trying to get across:

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.

a reply to: Mary Rose

Thank you for the clarification. I do appreciate that.

I agree that one should not have to run an experiment in order to post in a scientifically focused forum. It would be unfeasible to ask that of most people, especially when one enters the realms of the nitty gritty very precise science that requires very precise instruments.

I do still disagree that innovators are shut out of the system. Let me clarify... They may initially be shut out of the system, but time vindicates good science. This is a result of peer review. Certainly, papers are denied. Certainly the science in denied papers is not always wrong. Yet, with certainty, I can say that good ideas will never die.

Do you know how long the idea of plate tectonics was not accepted by the mainstream scientists? It wasn't until roughly the 50's that science vindicated that theory.

Really though, I ask what alternative is there to peer review? To abolish peer review would be to unleash the contents of Pandora's box, to allow all ideas equal status. Contradictory claims would be published, and could be published without ever checking if the methods were sound or followed or if the conclusions were supported by the data.

Opening the floor to innovators is one thing, but you have stated that peer reviewed papers should not be used to attack ideas that have not been peer reviewed, have you not? On what grounds would one argue against these innovators if not with peer reviewed science? Is not the only option left to run the experiment ourselves? You do not seem fond of that, and I certainly am not fond of it either. So the other option would be to refute these innovators with feelings, opinions, or something outside of the realm of logic, yes? Or, would you rather everyone just accept it and no one be skeptical of the claims made by the innovator? I do not think that is an option.

When you lose skepticism in science, you lose what makes science science in the first place...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

There is only one HUGE flaw with that premise...

It is impossible to understand propaganda by STUDYING propaganda.

Makes just as much sense as trying to decipher Scientology by reading "Dianetics".

Or trying to understand a cult by joining the cult and reading their own writings.

Or studying the NIST report in order to understand 9/11.

Or understand current events by watching the MSM...

It's NOT going to happen.

I don't believe a WORD the temple cult of Scientism says any more than I would believe any thing that politicians say.

It is because of 'Pal' review that the rampant fraud and misleading conclusions of scientific "research" is so prevalent today.

BTW, I'm not offended at all.

It's just that when someone asks for something that does NOT exist, there is no answer that will satisfy them.

The High Priests perform their statistical rituals and the cultists genuflect reverently before their idol, Science. And it's all very impressive until the truth is discovered spectator.org...

How do you know if you have fallen prey to the cult of 'Scientism'? Answer this question: Can you differentiate between the collective human understanding of 'how' things work in our material world, and the 'why' of how they came to be that way. (or even why it does what it does at all.) Those are two very different questions, that scientists, (who frequenty are very bad philosophers,) often get mixed up. Never forget that 'science' can be as abused for the sake of religious or anti-religious preconceptions as equally as the Bible can be, on both sides of a debate.

This becomes readily obvious when you investigate the unquestioned assumption that most Atheist-leaning scientists tenaciously hold on to as their 'modus operandi'. One way to state this foundational belief is: "Only statements that are verifiable through a scientific method can be held as truth, or objectively knowable."

Combating the cult of "Scientism."

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Mary Rose
I do still disagree that innovators are shut out of the system. Let me clarify... They may initially be shut out of the system, but time vindicates good science. This is a result of peer review.

No, it’s not.

It’s because eventually the truth outs because it won’t be denied.

. . . you have stated that peer reviewed papers should not be used to attack ideas that have not been peer reviewed, have you not?

I have not.

I said that ideas put forth by innovators should not be shot down on the basis that the innovator does not have a peer reviewed paper published.

a reply to: Mary Rose

I know what you mean about the peer review process more or less being hijacked. I read a really good article about how science research is essentially dead in the water largely because of this. If I can ever find that article again I will share.

a reply to: jrod

Please do.

I have been trying to retrieve a detailed article on the subject that I had previously posted but I haven't found it yet.

This is an important topic.

If a published paper independently or not is not peer reviewed. It does not invalidate the conclusions the paper proposes. But, I find an arrogant attitude from people who refuse to seriously to consider a non peer reviewed paper validations as it has never undergone the peer reviewed process. Their attitude is if the person does not have a peer reviewed paper. His or Her conclusions are not to be taken seriously. I have witnessed this attitude first hand in the area of Biblical Archaeology. The Professional vs The Amateur archaeologists.

a reply to: PGTWEED

Yes, it is so easy to use that as a pretext.

a reply to: PGTWEED

Howdy,

Would you mind if I weigh in on this discussion?

I personally believe that it is not peer review that makes people distrust the conclusions of amateurs and favor those of the professionals. It is a matter of training, I think. 9.9 times out of ten, I would favor a trained dentist over an amateur. 9.9 times out of ten I want the trained heart surgeon. 9.9 times out of ten, I'll trust that professional (with degree) archeologists have been trained to minimize contamination, follow proper methodology, and make unbiased conclusions (instead of starting with an assumption and trying to prove it). This is where most amateurs fail, simply because they lack the training.

Don't get me wrong, some amateurs have sought the necessary knowledge to produce good conclusions. Some are very capable individuals. Here's an example of a dedicated amateur that even my paleontology professor respects for his work... (Admittedly a biologist with a PhD, but not a paleontologist.)
www.trilobites.info...

See, science isn't something anybody can pick up and do tomorrow. It requires rigorous training and methodology, just like any other advanced technical career. Do people exist outside of science that excel at it? Well, I'd say no, because science is science, but certainly amateurs who are not professionally trained but do follow protocol exist. But how can anyone be sure that any one amateur follows the methods and makes sounds conclusions?

You cannot have scientists who are untrained, as things have advanced greatly since the early days of Newton and Darwin. How many people can operate an X-ray diffractometer without being trained? A scanning electron microscope? How many amateurs can even afford to use such tools?

To preempt an argument that may arise, if you do not trust in the training of scientists (brainwashed numbskulls that we are, right?), then you do not belong on a science forum. It's as simple as that. Science is a great deal methodology, and if you disagree with it, what you discuss is no longer science. The realm of alternative science is one that does not truly exist. There only exists a grey area where unsubstantiated science may one day become established science. (For example willow bark to aspirin...) If claims have been around for some time and have not been adopted into science, there is a good reason for it...

Regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

i don't really have anything to add to what you posted other than, yes... pretty spot on and said with more patience and eloquence than many others would have approached it. you nailed it right on the head that its not necessarily the conclusions reached by amateurs, because in some cases they have a different way of looking at the puzzle and often can add to the debate by giving a different perspective. Where trouble comes into p[lay is when the untrained individual takes a perspective of authority and in many cases disavows concepts like due diligence. In fact, they claim that its being shat on because its not been peer reviewed when the simple fact is that when a "professional" takes the time to go over the paper or data it actually is being peer reviewed. they simply feel that any disagreement with their notions is a hallmark of the "scientific establishment" and its need to marginalize their view points in order to maintain the status quo which from personal experience is not very often the case.

originally posted by: hydeman11
To preempt an argument that may arise, if you do not trust in the training of scientists (brainwashed numbskulls that we are, right?), then you do not belong on a science forum.

Sounds like you're taking all of this personally.

Don't forget that the topic is problems with the peer review system, specifically shutting out cutting edge science and technology by those seeking to maintain the status quo.

a reply to: Mary Rose

Howdy,

Absolutely not, just trying to add some humor to lighten the mood. I guess I accomplished the opposite. >.< I'm a generally happy-go-lucky type of person and I quite enjoy trying to give people an occasional smile whilst reading my rambling inane responses.

Yes, peer review was a general theme in that post, and do forgive me for sounding like a broken record, as when done correctly peer review allows one to be sure proper methodology was followed by the person making a claim. My point was amateurs, although sometimes quite excellent at what they do, have not received technical training and thus do not always follow methods which produce meaningful data. Sure, they may get an answer, and they might get it consistently (a measure of precision), but how accurate is it?

The point I am making is simply that peer review is a useful tool that prevents (if practiced correctly) meaningless data from confusing people making informed conclusions based on meaningful data. Unfortunately, and by no fault of the process's design (unless you consider being created by humans a fault, and you very well could...), there have been some issues of misuse and abuse. Nothing is perfect, but as a tool, it is significantly useful.

Your issue with the peer review system seems to stem from an issue of human nature, something one might call human error.
en.wikipedia.org...

It is the human element in the system that you seem to take fault with when you claim that people making decisions wish to maintain the status quo. I understand, I don't like that either. Unfortunately, I do not think academic journals have an impartial group of artificial intelligences with learning capabilities that can be used to unbiasedly judge the merits of submitted papers, so I am at a loss as to what you want done other than to allow ALL (and I do mean all) hypotheses a chance to be submitted, further clogging up the wheels of science as ALL spurious claims would then have to be checked by anyone wishing to read any science. To allow all hypotheses a chance without peer review would shut down not just the cutting edge science, but all science, as it would force all previously established works to be reconsidered.

To shorten my rather long winded response, I'm not funny, the problem is not the tool but the maker(/user) of said tool, the tool is quite useful, and without the tool things would become increasingly more difficult to sort through, especially as scientific knowledge becomes more specific and detailed. Now, if you have an alternative tool that has fewer unintended problems, I'd love to hear your suggestions. One day, I hope to be a scientist, and I do think I should strive to be the most impartial I can be on issues of scientific concern, so any help in such matters would be greatly appreciated.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11
Could you try to stay on topic?

That is a rambling response.

The topic of this thread is peer review as tyranny.

If you can show that people don't get shut out of the system by journals who refuse to publish cutting edge, job-threatening (for some) research and innovation, then post it.

originally posted by: PGTWEED
I have witnessed this attitude first hand in the area of Biblical Archaeology. The Professional vs The Amateur archaeologists.

Archaelogy is an area where the status quo is fiercely protected by the establishment, I know.

originally posted by: GetHyped
In this thread: a bunch of people who have no idea what peer-review or the scientific process is about and are annoyed that science won't acknowledge their credulously held magical beliefs.

IMO, Unwritten law is that some subjects that are not politically correct / and or ought not to be discussed will not be peer reviewed, by any respectable journal owing to their protocols about this unwritten law.

Peer review process and the party invitation list seem like similar social mechanisms to me. Make sure the cool kids like you!

a reply to: Mary Rose

Howdy,

I suppose you missed my point, and I agree, it was rambling, so I understand. Let me make my opinion shorter.

Yes, people get shut out because of peer review, and yes the system is flawed, but no that does not necessarily make it tyranny, and a few examples of where the system broke do not show a widespread problem (in fact, not seeing any would have me very concerned that such events were being maliciously hidden). Every cutting edge technical publication that gets published is evidence of what you ask for. You don't understand that most academic scientists don't mind being wrong, and the only ones who do mind have money tied into an issue. It is the merely the default position to be skeptical of made claims, and one that serves a scientist well, until sufficient evidence arises to validate something.

Of course, you are the one making an extraneous claim that the peer review system is run tyrannically (and not just flawed by human error), so you need to convince others by providing sufficient evidence, not asking me to disprove your claim (as yet I am skeptical of your claim and assertions). The burden of proof is on you in this situation, although I stand by what I said about every article in any cutting edge science publications that have honestly undergone peer review (unlike that one with the acoustics journal where the person claimed to be reviewers vouching for his own work).

And here's perhaps the best evidence that peer review is not tyrannical... If one journal denies you, you have more to choose from. Here, to demonstrate that other options are available, is wikipedia's short list on such journal available to biologists... Certainly you aren't claiming all of the reviewers of these magazines have the same "beliefs" on topics?
en.wikipedia.org...

Also, as long as I don't have to provide a peer reviewed paper on it, it is my strong opinion that science that contradicts previous studies makes sales in journals, and if sufficient evidence is available to say the paper shows following of the correct protocol, then it would be preferential to publish it. (Even those who disagree with it would need to pay to read it and analyze it to then argue against it.) It works for the sensationalism in mainstream media, right?

Now, you argue that the peer review process is tyrannical, I argue the the peer review process is merely the best flawed tool available to humans currently. I fear I have made my response no shorter, but I do hope it clarifies.