Leon
All Block
Posts: 40
|
Post by Leon on Jun 10, 2016 12:37:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Jun 10, 2016 14:49:18 GMT -5
Most certainly nothing anecdotal in that logic :rolleyes:
Also, it is a political 'science' paper. Calling a political scientist a scientist is much like calling a 1st grade math teacher a mathematician. Technically correct, but everyone(well, apparently not everyone) knows there's a large difference between the two. There's a reason they call political science and psychology soft sciences.
But if that's the color of the shade you must throw to try to denigrate scientists and the peer review process, then so be it, but your shade is far far too light.
|
|
|
Post by Whittaker on Jun 10, 2016 17:01:10 GMT -5
The failures of peer review are well documented. Leon gives you another example and you say he must "try to denigrate...the peer review process". Is peer review beyond examination? Or can it only be examined by those you deem worthy?
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Jun 10, 2016 19:27:05 GMT -5
The failures of peer review are well documented. Leon gives you another example and you say he must "try to denigrate...the peer review process". Is peer review beyond examination? Or can it only be examined by those you deem worthy? Never said peer review didn't have its faults, it most certainly does. Epistemologically speaking, what is your suggested alternative? You have one right? Papers that make it through the peer review process are retracted all the time. You would know that if you knew what you were talking about. Grabbing a faulty paper from a soft science and using it to tear down peer review is dumb and only shows that you do have no idea what you're talking about. If you were trying to tear down peer review, there are probably thousands of actual science papers that you could have chosen to make your point that would've been better than this bush league one. Not only are you wrong, but you are also terrible at being wrong. But to ignore the overwhelming amount of good it does to pick out where it failed in a soft science is ignorant. No one who actually does science is surprised that it failed in a discipline that is more subjective than objective and fails to measure anything quantifiable, two hallmarks of what makes science science. It's anecdotal....and not even rigorous to boot. You guys are so eager to try to disprove scientific consensus that you grab anything you can, regardless of how stupid it makes you look to people who actually do science. Meanwhile, others laugh at your ironic inability to recognize the self correcting nature of science and directly, the peer review process. If this error in the peer review process is true, then it's a process of peer review that identifies it. You hate on peer review, yet aren't fluent enough with it to identify it. Well that's embarrassing. The problem with a lot of you is that you make everything political. When you come across information, the first thing you do is try to fit it into your agenda. It's all subjective to you. Your thought process are, by definition, literally the opposite of scientific. Yet, here you are, trying to convince everyone that you are smarter than scientific experts are in their own field....and we should believe you why? Because you science so good???Pure comedy.
|
|
|
Post by CEOSouth on Jun 10, 2016 19:43:18 GMT -5
'I hate peer review! It doesn't work! I will prove it by showing you an example of the processes of peer review working'
You guys are awesome
'But...but...but... Science has been wrong before'
|
|
Leon
All Block
Posts: 40
|
Post by Leon on Jun 10, 2016 22:40:02 GMT -5
What's comical is that the data was 100% opposite of what the "scientists" claimed and pal review, oh excuse me peer review missed it.
Is climate science hard science? Mike Mann doesn't even know his data is upside down when he creates his hockey sticks and pal review, oh excuse me peer review misses it 100% of the time. Peer review would work if the buddy system were not in place In a lot of these fields.
Medical science Social science Climate science Are rampant with pal review, not critical peer review. Follow the money in most of these fields.
Medical, we found promising results, we need more money for research Medical, we found no promising results, you can stop funding me Pals are on their side and pat each other's backs for the $$$$
Climate, we found man to be harmful, more money to research how harmful is needed Climate, we found man to me a minuscule factor, you can stop funding me Pals are on their side and pat each other's backs for the $$$$ train
|
|
Leon
All Block
Posts: 40
|
Post by Leon on Jun 15, 2016 10:37:22 GMT -5
A heck of a lot of hoopla about the 2016 Paris flood being caused by Man made global warming. You can bank on a paper coming out within the next year and getting through pal review, oops I mean peer review that claims the 2016 flood would have been blah, blah lower if not for evil man. Hand over your money. Hopefully this topic lasts, so I can link back to this post when that peer reviewed paper comes out. By the way the peak of the floods were 6.1 meters in 2016 <--- caused by man made global warming 8.6 meters in 1910 <--- nobody alive remembers it so it didn't happen
|
|
Leon
All Block
Posts: 40
|
Post by Leon on Jun 29, 2016 6:35:50 GMT -5
|
|