ExAFO 0 #1 January 11, 2008 Well?Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 January 11, 2008 Only if they're done by groups approved by certain members of SC, apparently... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 January 11, 2008 QuoteWell? Yes. Peer review demonstrates that something actually works. Hence, we don't have cold fusion reactors developed for commercial use based upon Pons and Fleischman. Peer review worked. But "peer review" is too often suggested for political means. Thsi is ridiculous, since political decisions cannot be "peer reviewed." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #4 January 11, 2008 QuoteBut "peer review" is too often suggested for political means. Thsi is ridiculous, since political decisions cannot be "peer reviewed." Quoted for truth/emphasis.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #5 January 11, 2008 well, someone needs to review research, and the best ones to do it are other people with expertise in that same field. the problem comes when everyone in your field has spent their careers proving the earth is flat and you give them a study that says the earth is round. its not a perfect system, but its the best we've got. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #6 January 11, 2008 QuoteWell? What alternative process would you recommend & why? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #7 January 11, 2008 While I may be completely wrong, I wonder if you’re really concerned about "Scientific, Peer-Reviewed Studies" themselves? Science and the publication of scientific results can used/appropriated/co-opted by folks who aren't so much concerned about the science but are interested in the how the data &/or information might affect/impact their interests or their beliefs (to some extent on all "sides"). And that is part of what science should do - be used to as part of the informed decision-making process, i.e., science-based policy. Now that's something of a truism – a lot of skydivers care very little about aerodynamics, only that "it works" and the plane flies ... How many policy-makers do you think read "Scientific, Peer-Reviewed Studies" as opposed to secondary or tertiary reports, analysis, and policy recommendations? Frankly, I don't have a lot of sympathy for groups or individuals that are interested in (mis)-using science for underlying motives of increasing their income while hurting others. Now there's everything right with being rich and making money, but not when it's damaging to other humans and blatantly irresponsible to stewardship of the nation and the planet for future generations. That's part of my moral code ... & admittedly, not entirely scientific ... More importantly to me, I'm on the side of informed debate by a larger portion of the citizenry, i.e., people aren't stupid and democracy works best when folks have access to information to make decisions. I love it when folks introduce primary data here and start pulling apart the methods and interpretations. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #8 January 11, 2008 My poop smells like bacon. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #9 January 11, 2008 Then you must look forward to a good poop session. Studies are only useful when they back a position the said person is in favor of.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #10 January 11, 2008 Yes.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #11 January 11, 2008 What is a "reality of life" in this context.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #12 January 11, 2008 Quote What is a "reality of life" in this context. "Useful" for what? If you are developing a new drug to treat Parkinson's disease or diabetes, would you prefer it to be tested in a peer-reviewed scientific study, or have you some other method in mind? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 569 #13 January 11, 2008 As someone mentioned the biggest problem with peer review is that all of us filter based on our own belief or learning structures. Therefore peer review tends to build on consensus and radical idea's are sometimes discarded wrongly. I fully accept that in excess of 99% of material that is debunked/dismissed is genuinely flawed however. There was a BBC radio discussion on this and it was mentioned that if Einsteins work had been subjected to modern peer review much of it would have been rejected. We already have the alternative option though, as science/engineering operates in 2 spheres (academic & commercial). You can entirely aviod peer review and go for venture funding and build an enterprise out of a concept or idea. I think this is a viable alternative model that is proven to work.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #14 January 11, 2008 QuoteAs someone mentioned the biggest problem with peer review is that all of us filter based on our own belief or learning structures. Therefore peer review tends to build on consensus and radical idea's are sometimes discarded wrongly. I fully accept that in excess of 99% of material that is debunked/dismissed is genuinely flawed however. There was a BBC radio discussion on this and it was mentioned that if Einsteins work had been subjected to modern peer review much of it would have been rejected. We already have the alternative option though, as science/engineering operates in 2 spheres (academic & commercial). You can entirely aviod peer review and go for venture funding and build an enterprise out of a concept or idea. I think this is a viable alternative model that is proven to work. The peer review that I've seen (and that's a lot) is almost 100% concerned with such things as: were the experiments performed correctly, was the math done properly, were proper controls in place... Nothing to do with opinions or prevailing orthodoxy. That's just a red herring mostly propagated by charlatans. I think the drug example mentioned above is excellent - what process other than peer reviewed testing would anyone suggest before approving a new pharmaceutical for sale to the public? I don't think investment by venture capitalists would work there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #15 January 11, 2008 What he said. In my line of work, reviews aren't a way of rubberstamping an opinion, they're more of a "Did I do the research correctly?", and "Did I forget to take anything important into account?". Sometimes there's an implied "Do the conclusions draw logically from the data?", but that's about as close as it gets. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
