On 22 Aug 2020 at 23:37:49 BST, "
wrote:

On Saturday, 22 August 2020 15:32:06 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 21 August 2020 15:32:08 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

not much detail there, but I have noticed that the great majority
of Peer reviewed science in leading scientific journals is bunk.

This journal:

https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1367-2630

is entirely open access. Pick any paper you like, and tell
us the reasons why it is "bunk". Better yet, write them up
properly and submit a Comment to the journal itself.

listed: [...]

None of those are areas of any expertise for me. None of them strike
me as relevant to the problems with the green agenda.

You said "the great majority of Peer reviewed science in leading
scientific journals", a statement that you did not constrain to
apply only within your expertise, or to within a "green agenda".
So, I could repeat:

Pick any paper you like, and tell us the reasons why it is
"bunk". Better yet, write them up properly and submit a
Comment to the journal itself.

However, like a number of people here, you talk big about "peer
reviewed science", but utterly fail to actually engage with any of
it on any meaningful level. The failure is so persistent, and so
pronounced, that I presume you imagine that others somehow do not
notice, and will be taken in by your assertions.


#Paul

Lol. If you get the first clue what's going on let us know. Until there is no
point engaging with you.

'Us'?! The point of peer reviewed research is that it's the best stab 'we'
have at an informed view.

For anyone with a functioning brain cell:

Most of 'us' have more than one, but given you've put yours into overdrive . .

On Sunday, 23 August 2020 08:13:57 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 22 Aug 2020 at 23:37:49 BST, "tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 22 August 2020 15:32:06 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 21 August 2020 15:32:08 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

not much detail there, but I have noticed that the great majority
of Peer reviewed science in leading scientific journals is bunk.

This journal:

https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1367-2630

is entirely open access. Pick any paper you like, and tell
us the reasons why it is "bunk". Better yet, write them up
properly and submit a Comment to the journal itself.

listed: [...]

None of those are areas of any expertise for me. None of them strike
me as relevant to the problems with the green agenda.

You said "the great majority of Peer reviewed science in leading
scientific journals", a statement that you did not constrain to
apply only within your expertise, or to within a "green agenda".
So, I could repeat:

Pick any paper you like, and tell us the reasons why it is
"bunk". Better yet, write them up properly and submit a
Comment to the journal itself.

However, like a number of people here, you talk big about "peer
reviewed science", but utterly fail to actually engage with any of
it on any meaningful level. The failure is so persistent, and so
pronounced, that I presume you imagine that others somehow do not
notice, and will be taken in by your assertions.


#Paul

Lol. If you get the first clue what's going on let us know. Until there is no
point engaging with you.

'Us'?! The point of peer reviewed research is that it's the best stab 'we'
have at an informed view.

that's the idea behind it, often not the practice though. What's your point?

Tim Streater wrote:
That's a mistaken view. Any top scientist should be able to
peer any other - given time to bone up on some stuff.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about... unless,
perhaps, by "given time to bone up" you mean something like
"several years". Modern science is highly technical and highly
specialised and even peer-reviewing within ones own field can
be challenging. Bear in mind that the science in question was
(or should have) even been challenging for the *authors* to
do. And although public-friendly summaries may get across the
general idea, and give a reader an impression of having
understood; this should not be mistake for any sort of actual
understanding, which requires significant expertise.

#Paul

On Sunday, 23 August 2020 21:32:08 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

That's a mistaken view. Any top scientist should be able to
peer any other - given time to bone up on some stuff.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about... unless,
perhaps, by "given time to bone up" you mean something like
"several years". Modern science is highly technical and highly
specialised and even peer-reviewing within ones own field can
be challenging. Bear in mind that the science in question was
(or should have) even been challenging for the *authors* to
do. And although public-friendly summaries may get across the
general idea, and give a reader an impression of having
understood; this should not be mistake for any sort of actual
understanding, which requires significant expertise.

#Paul

This time at least you're absolutely correct.

The research papers I've read are prone to mistakes of many kinds at every stage. On the first one I did as an undergrad I realised I could take the same set of data and present it as 'yes it works' or 'no it doesn't' with plausible deniability. No-one has any chance of picking the issues researchers run into up unless they know the subject well, and even then they frequently won't realise some of the issues the researcher encountered and did not choose to mention.

And there are far more problems with research than just that one. All considered it's not surprising that most research conclusions are simply bunk.


NT