3 ms·

>> Stop gaming peer review by having the papers reviewed by a group of people who all agree. > Are you accusing of fraud? Any example, please? Your response t

>> Stop gaming peer review by having the papers reviewed by a group of people who all agree. > Are you accusing of fraud? Any example, please? Your response to this sentence is what feeds the problem. It is completely fair to point out, in the context of this discussion, flaws in the process that produces some of this research. The parent was pointing out, in the sentence, one problem with the process which produces scientific papers. This is certainly a discussion that needs to be had, and responding in this way which is dismissive is exactly what the parent was saying. Science needs to be scientific about the publishing process. And yes, literally complete gibberish has been published before: https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763 https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-12... The academic peer review process is far from perfect, and the incentives of the humans involved does not necessarily align with producing the most accurate science.

Oletros 9y ago
No, the problem is the sentence. Will you say that peer review papers about quantum mechanics are rigged because they are reviewed by a group of people who all agree that eveolution is real? Will you say that peer review papers about Evolution are rigged because they are reviewed by a group of people who all agree that eveolution is real? > The academic peer review process is far from perfect, and the incentives of the humans involved does not necessarily align with producing the most accurate science And this is another subtle accusation of fraud. Do you have any proof of climate science papers are rigged? > This is certainly a discussion that needs to be had, and responding in this way which is dismissive is exactly what the parent was saying No, the parent was saying that climate papers are wrong beacuse the papers are only reviewed by people that think that climate change is real.
okreallywtf 9y ago
So because the process has flaws (like all processes), we should all just take a breather and tidy that all up to be rock solid before we move forward with anything? The earth would literally grind to a halt if we applied that reasoning to everything. The system will never be perfect, if you take take a small number of instances of academic dishonesty and use that to debase something as enormous and researched as climate science, how could we ever hope to make decisions about anything? If you applied this type of thinking to everything else how could you make any decision at all?
- stevejb 9y ago
  > So because the process has flaws (like all processes), we should all just take a breather and tidy that all up to be rock solid before we move forward with anything? The earth would literally grind to a halt if we applied that reasoning to everything. No, not necessarily. I think that what the original poster was saying was that when a person questions climate change, they are met with the same type of response as when a person's religion is insulted. And for most people who believe in scientific truths, to them it is a religion in the sense that they personally cannot prove it. They are picking a group for its general beliefs, social acceptance, camaraderie, etc, but to not know any more about the science they believe in than most religious people know about the religion they profess to believe in. > The system will never be perfect, if you take take a small number of instances of academic dishonesty and use that to debase something as enormous and researched as climate science, how could we ever hope to make decisions about anything? Can I paraphrase? Say we were talking about the religion, and someone points out that there are cases where religious people abuse their power to hurt others. The response is often, "The church will never be perfect, if you take a small number of instances of abuse of religious authority and use that to debase something as enormous and researched as god the almighty and the 10 commandments, how could we ever hope to make decisions about anything?" Assuming that you are not religious, how would you respond to a religious person who made that argument?
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > I think that what the original poster was saying was that when a person questions climate change, they are met with the same type of response as when a person's religion is insulted. No, that's not what the original poster was saying. The original poster was insinuating that all climate researchers are fraudsters, the original poster was insinuating that all climate research is wrong. He is the one being religious

Oletros 9y ago

No, the problem is the sentence. Will you say that peer review papers about quantum mechanics are rigged because they are reviewed by a group of people who all agree that eveolution is real? Will you say that peer review papers about Evolution are rigged because they are reviewed by a group of people who all agree that eveolution is real? > The academic peer review process is far from perfect, and the incentives of the humans involved does not necessarily align with producing the most accurate science And this is another subtle accusation of fraud. Do you have any proof of climate science papers are rigged? > This is certainly a discussion that needs to be had, and responding in this way which is dismissive is exactly what the parent was saying No, the parent was saying that climate papers are wrong beacuse the papers are only reviewed by people that think that climate change is real.

okreallywtf 9y ago

So because the process has flaws (like all processes), we should all just take a breather and tidy that all up to be rock solid before we move forward with anything? The earth would literally grind to a halt if we applied that reasoning to everything. The system will never be perfect, if you take take a small number of instances of academic dishonesty and use that to debase something as enormous and researched as climate science, how could we ever hope to make decisions about anything? If you applied this type of thinking to everything else how could you make any decision at all?

stevejb 9y ago
> So because the process has flaws (like all processes), we should all just take a breather and tidy that all up to be rock solid before we move forward with anything? The earth would literally grind to a halt if we applied that reasoning to everything. No, not necessarily. I think that what the original poster was saying was that when a person questions climate change, they are met with the same type of response as when a person's religion is insulted. And for most people who believe in scientific truths, to them it is a religion in the sense that they personally cannot prove it. They are picking a group for its general beliefs, social acceptance, camaraderie, etc, but to not know any more about the science they believe in than most religious people know about the religion they profess to believe in. > The system will never be perfect, if you take take a small number of instances of academic dishonesty and use that to debase something as enormous and researched as climate science, how could we ever hope to make decisions about anything? Can I paraphrase? Say we were talking about the religion, and someone points out that there are cases where religious people abuse their power to hurt others. The response is often, "The church will never be perfect, if you take a small number of instances of abuse of religious authority and use that to debase something as enormous and researched as god the almighty and the 10 commandments, how could we ever hope to make decisions about anything?" Assuming that you are not religious, how would you respond to a religious person who made that argument?
- Oletros 9y ago
  > I think that what the original poster was saying was that when a person questions climate change, they are met with the same type of response as when a person's religion is insulted. No, that's not what the original poster was saying. The original poster was insinuating that all climate researchers are fraudsters, the original poster was insinuating that all climate research is wrong. He is the one being religious