On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:15:58 -0600, Lew Hartswick
wrote:

Dersu Uzala wrote:
and I know that in the
scientific world, accolades go the scientist that over-turns the accepted
paradigm.

Jut where have you heard that?
From the time of Galileo to the present I think you have
proven wrong in that many time over.
...lew... cross posting deleted

The disconnect is timeframe. Accolades for "wrong-thinkers"
who turn out to be right are posthumous.

Peer review is a good system for weeding out irresponsible and
deliberately deceptive research, but it is as prone to imperfection
and error as government elected by a majority because peers (and
voters) often have self-interest agendae.

There are few institutions more political and bureaucratic than
universities and academia.

Dersu Uzala wrote:
and I know that in the
scientific world, accolades go the scientist that over-turns the
accepted
paradigm.

Jut where have you heard that?
From the time of Galileo to the present I think you have
proven wrong in that many time over.
...lew... cross posting deleted

The disconnect is timeframe. Accolades for "wrong-thinkers"
who turn out to be right are posthumous.

Peer review is a good system for weeding out irresponsible and
deliberately deceptive research, but it is as prone to imperfection
and error as government elected by a majority because peers (and
voters) often have self-interest agendae.

There are few institutions more political and bureaucratic than
universities and academia.

That may indeed be true, but it doesn't stop academia from coming to
accepted standards and a consensus on most issues. Whether it's string
theory, relativity, quantum physics, or anything else the scientific
community does things a certain way and eventually, when it gets enough
facts, it concludes what the established science is on a subject. What is
being asserted is that this scientific consensus does now exist regarding
global warming. Of course, there will be some who dispute what the majority
has decided, but just because a few voices dissent that doesn't change what
the majority in a field have concluded. We're at that point about global
warming. The accepted science as of today is that man is causing the planet
to warm unnaturally fast. Anyone that wants can take the opposite view but
you have to understand that just like nicotine and tobacco there is a side
in this that is trying to muddy the water because they have a vested
interest in there not being man made global warming. When you take them out
of the discussion what's left is a scientific view that is accepted as fact
by most every credible scientist. And you have a small group of scientists
who don't agree with the majority. In a group of scientists it is not often
that the small group having the minority opinion is proven right. Sometimes,
but not often. In this case with all the evidence available the odds of the
majority being completely wrong is pretty damn slim.

Hawke

Don Foreman wrote:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:15:58 -0600, Lew Hartswick
wrote:


Dersu Uzala wrote:
and I know that in the

scientific world, accolades go the scientist that over-turns the accepted
paradigm.

Jut where have you heard that?
From the time of Galileo to the present I think you have
proven wrong in that many time over.
...lew... cross posting deleted


The disconnect is timeframe. Accolades for "wrong-thinkers"
who turn out to be right are posthumous.

Peer review is a good system for weeding out irresponsible and
deliberately deceptive research, but it is as prone to imperfection
and error as government elected by a majority because peers (and
voters) often have self-interest agendae.

There are few institutions more political and bureaucratic than
universities and academia.


In reality, Don, that's exactly what makes the peer review system
work well.

Your professional reputation is at stake.
Can't get much more self-interest that that...


Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:43:58 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:


Your professional reputation is at stake.
Can't get much more self-interest that that...

So are the reps of the reviewers. New "discoveries" (like cold
fusion) certainly should withstand (and be debunked if appropriate) by
peer scrutiny. But sometimes the peers have their own axes to grind,
like years of research and credibility that


One should keep in mind Galileo and his peers in the Catholic Church.

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Mar 30, 2:10*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:43:58 -0600, Don Foreman
...peer scrutiny. *But sometimes the peers have their own axes to grind,
like years of research and credibility *that
One should keep in mind Galileo and his peers in the Catholic Church.
Gunner

A recent example of politically-influenced peer review is Alfred
Wegener and Continental Drift.

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:47:44 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:15:58 -0600, Lew Hartswick
wrote:


Dersu Uzala wrote:
and I know that in the

scientific world, accolades go the scientist that over-turns the accepted
paradigm.

Jut where have you heard that?
From the time of Galileo to the present I think you have
proven wrong in that many time over.
...lew... cross posting deleted


The disconnect is timeframe. Accolades for "wrong-thinkers"
who turn out to be right are posthumous.

Peer review is a good system for weeding out irresponsible and
deliberately deceptive research, but it is as prone to imperfection
and error as government elected by a majority because peers (and
voters) often have self-interest agendae.

There are few institutions more political and bureaucratic than
universities and academia.


In reality, Don, that's exactly what makes the peer review system
work well.

Your professional reputation is at stake.
Can't get much more self-interest that that...

So are the reps of the reviewers. New "discoveries" (like cold
fusion) certainly should withstand (and be debunked if appropriate) by
peer scrutiny. But sometimes the peers have their own axes to grind,
like years of research and credibility that could be threatened by a
bona fide new discovery or insight.

I'm not knocking the system at all, nor taking either side of the
warming debate.

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:43:58 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:


Your professional reputation is at stake.
Can't get much more self-interest that that...

So are the reps of the reviewers. New "discoveries" (like cold
fusion) certainly should withstand (and be debunked if appropriate) by
peer scrutiny. But sometimes the peers have their own axes to grind,
like years of research and credibility that



One should keep in mind Galileo and his peers in the Catholic Church.

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner


That's not what I would call scientifiic peer review.

Even if they did finally remit - 300 years later?

Well, better late than never.

Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:18:06 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:43:58 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:


Your professional reputation is at stake.
Can't get much more self-interest that that...

So are the reps of the reviewers. New "discoveries" (like cold
fusion) certainly should withstand (and be debunked if appropriate) by
peer scrutiny. But sometimes the peers have their own axes to grind,
like years of research and credibility that



One should keep in mind Galileo and his peers in the Catholic Church.

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner


That's not what I would call scientifiic peer review.

Even if they did finally remit - 300 years later?

Well, better late than never.

Richard

Problem is that even scientific peer reviews are conducted by people.
People's motives are not always pure. I ran a number of design
reviews and research reviews back in the day. I brought in outside
consultants from industry and academia with intent of keeping things
objective with a diverse set of viewpoints and backgrounds. There
were times when it was a challenge to keep them from becoming witch
hunts. Think room full of large egos with quivers full of darts.