Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 22:33:41 GMT -5
We don't know, because Peer Review doesn't work nearly as well as we assume.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 11, 2019 23:13:09 GMT -5
Great Video! Thanks for posting it.
I posted an article on this a couple of years ago. It's a scandal!
The "publish or perish" culture in science tempts too many people to do sloppy research just so they can say they published a lot of papers.
And no one is stopping them.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 10:42:29 GMT -5
There was no mention of sloppy research or anything of the sort in the video.
The video was talking about the faults of the academic peer review process.
There are no rules or regulations who can publish an academic journal, and every journal makes its own rules how a proper peer review should look like. Everyone with money to burn can found their own academic journal, and their relevancy is measured solely by who is being published there, and by how many and which university libraries are subscribed to them.
It is a perfect example of a free marketplace of ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 12, 2019 12:56:55 GMT -5
There was no mention of sloppy research or anything of the sort in the video. The video was talking about the faults of the academic peer review process. Wrong. Listen to the first 2 minutes again. There is no mention of peer review. The first 2 minutes talk about to the failure of independent labs to replicate results.  Of course not. Eventually those bad results are refuted when they can't be replicated. There is also the matter of Freedom of the Press. Would you also end press freedom because some media sources are biased? And what would you suggest to replace the peer review process? A government-run system? Like the government-run system they had in the old Soviet Union? Remember Lysenko? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 23:29:09 GMT -5
There was no mention of sloppy research or anything of the sort in the video. The video was talking about the faults of the academic peer review process. Wrong. Listen to the first 2 minutes again. There is no mention of peer review. The first 2 minutes talk about to the failure of independent labs to replicate results. Of course not. Eventually those bad results are refuted when they can't be replicated. Few scientific experiments can be replicated. And there is little money to be found in replicating known findings in the first place. A scientist can only advance in their career if they are producing positive results and getting them published. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 13, 2019 10:14:41 GMT -5
Wrong. Listen to the first 2 minutes again. There is no mention of peer review. The first 2 minutes talk about to the failure of independent labs to replicate results. Of course not. Eventually those bad results are refuted when they can't be replicated. Few scientific experiments can be replicated. Really? That's not what your posted video says. One source mentioned says that the figure is 50%. Another says it's 30%. And the narration makes clear that this does not apply to papers from the physical sciences where "bullshit is harder to get away with." Yes. Unfortunately that is all too true. In the USA, a lot of the research money comes from the Federal Government. Scientists are forced to publish papers in order to keep the grant money coming in. And the government apparently measures "success" by the number of papers published. "$140 Billion The federal government pays almost $140 billion a year for research and development, down from $160 Billion in 2010" www.bu.edu/research/articles/funding-for-scientific-research/Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 13:59:03 GMT -5
You are right Bob, science would be better off if we all stopped funding it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 13, 2019 20:22:27 GMT -5
You are right Bob, science would be better off if we all stopped funding it.
I never said that. You made it up.
What I did say is that we would be better off if the government stopped indiscriminately funding science.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2019 12:40:38 GMT -5
You are right Bob, science would be better off if we all stopped funding it. I never said that. You made it up. You mean, you used different words to make that argument, because you think you've very clever and you believe in going the extra mile to obfuscate your point. Don't worry, Bob, I've noticed. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 14, 2019 15:18:06 GMT -5
I never said that. You made it up. You mean, you used different words to make that argument, because you think you've very clever and you believe in going the extra mile to obfuscate your point. Don't worry, Bob, I've noticed.
 Of course not. I mean I never made that argument at all. You made it up.
And as usual, you didn't cut and paste what I actually said because that would immediately prove your claim to be false.
That's what I noticed. 
Bob
|
|
Of course not. Eventually those bad results are refuted when they can't be replicated. There is also the matter of Freedom of the Press. Would you also end press freedom because some media sources are biased?
Of course not. I mean I never made that argument at all. You made it up.