4 ms·

Why do you think you know more about astronomy than a team of scientists publishing peer reviewed information?

fasteddie31003 5y ago
Peer reviewed has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is just a layer of scientific bureaucracy. Just give me a calibration image of another celestial body and I'll be happy.
- zenmaster10665 5y ago
  this guy astronomies.
- malfist 5y ago
  You realize peer review isn't just something you do and they automatically publish you, right? Peer review makes sure your science is sound. But I'm sure you're more of an expert than anybody serving in a peer review board.
  - fasteddie31003 5y ago
    Peer review has let plenty of bad science through. Don't burn me at the stake because I speak heresy against the holy theologians of astronomy.
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      Bad papers do get through, but anything as high-profile as the first image of the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way will get intense scrutiny.
    - malfist 5y ago
      All you're saying is: They're wrong, not gonna say how, but trust me. Why should I trust you that you know more about astronomy than a team of astronomers and a peer review board? I've asked you this three times so far and you've not given an answer.
    - oldgradstudent 5y ago
      You might try publishing that comment as a dialog, but try not to ridicule the Pope's position too harshly, though. It didn't end up well for Galileo.
  - JacobThreeThree 5y ago
    >Peer review makes sure your science is sound No it doesn't. Most peer review doesn't even attempt to reproduce results, which is the real way to make sure the science is sound.
    - pfortuny 5y ago
      You’re being downvoted for saying exactly what happens in the biological, economical and social sciences… Unbelievable.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    Peers review the paper. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that the paper clearly communicates the work of the authors. In the process of doing so, questions and clarifications may better reveal problems with the underlying science itself, which can result in the paper being withdrawn or declined. But peers don’t independently validate results. At the same time it should be noted that published criticism has to meet the same bar. “You didn’t do the experiment the way I would have” is not really strong criticism. Experiments or observations can always be done better; this is a central ethos of science. The strongest criticism is usually to conduct one’s own experiment the way one wants, and then show that it produced better results.
  - OrderlyTiamat 5y ago
    I'd just like to disentangle criticisms of the practice of peer review from whether this commenter is an expert or not. The former is valid or invalid irrespective of the latter.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JonShartwell 5y ago
It’s absolutely in the spirit of science to question an experiment’s methods and results. If you disagree with the criticism then present some evidence. An appeal to authority is pretty unconvincing considering scientists have been confidently wrong about quite a lot in the past.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  Criticism must bring substance as well. Sure, anyone can sit back and say “I don’t believe this, prove it better.” But without specific claims, such criticism can’t ever be answered and the conversation is not constructive or particularly scientific. One constructive approach to criticism here would be to take the documented imaging process and apply it to other data. If it produces results that don’t match existing evidence, that would be evidence it is flawed.
  - JonShartwell 5y ago
    I don’t know, the criticism in OP seems pretty substantive to me. I don’t know much about this subject so I can’t really weigh in on how much the post makes sense but regardless appeal to authority is essentially the opposite of modern science. That’s why nullius in verba has been a motto of science for 300+ years. On that point, scientists don’t need you to chastise people for questioning their authority online. I think a lot of them would be offended at the idea that you think that is what they want.
    - fesoliveira 5y ago
      >I don’t know much about this subject so I can’t really weigh in on how much the post makes sense but [...] Then how can you say the criticism seems substantive? He brings nothing to the table to show that his criticism is valid, it's basically "I don't like, therefore wrong". The proper way criticize their paper would be conduct your own experiments using their parameters and methodologies and show that the results you obtain do not match theoretical results or results of other observations through other means. >On that point, scientists don’t need you to chastise people for questioning their authority online. I think a lot of them would be offended at the idea that you think that is what they want. We question their authority on this specific subject they seem to be criticizing. If you make a claim without having at least the background to support said claim, what value does it have? It's the same as a person without background in microbiology or virology claiming vaccines don't work when they don't even begin to understand the science behind it and the mountain of evidence that says otherwise.
pfortuny 5y ago
Sorry but as this is a press conI doubt the thing has really passed “peer review” properly speaking. There was some hype about: FTL events, life based on cyanide not phosphorus… Careful with “peer review” when the set of peers is invested in the same type of results.
- wumpus 5y ago
  We published 10 papers today.

Peer reviewed has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is just a layer of scientific bureaucracy. Just give me a calibration image of another celestial body and I'll be happy.

zenmaster10665 5y ago
this guy astronomies.
malfist 5y ago
You realize peer review isn't just something you do and they automatically publish you, right? Peer review makes sure your science is sound. But I'm sure you're more of an expert than anybody serving in a peer review board.
- fasteddie31003 5y ago
  Peer review has let plenty of bad science through. Don't burn me at the stake because I speak heresy against the holy theologians of astronomy.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    Bad papers do get through, but anything as high-profile as the first image of the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way will get intense scrutiny.
  - malfist 5y ago
    All you're saying is: They're wrong, not gonna say how, but trust me. Why should I trust you that you know more about astronomy than a team of astronomers and a peer review board? I've asked you this three times so far and you've not given an answer.
  - oldgradstudent 5y ago
    You might try publishing that comment as a dialog, but try not to ridicule the Pope's position too harshly, though. It didn't end up well for Galileo.
- JacobThreeThree 5y ago
  >Peer review makes sure your science is sound No it doesn't. Most peer review doesn't even attempt to reproduce results, which is the real way to make sure the science is sound.
  - pfortuny 5y ago
    You’re being downvoted for saying exactly what happens in the biological, economical and social sciences… Unbelievable.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  Peers review the paper. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that the paper clearly communicates the work of the authors. In the process of doing so, questions and clarifications may better reveal problems with the underlying science itself, which can result in the paper being withdrawn or declined. But peers don’t independently validate results. At the same time it should be noted that published criticism has to meet the same bar. “You didn’t do the experiment the way I would have” is not really strong criticism. Experiments or observations can always be done better; this is a central ethos of science. The strongest criticism is usually to conduct one’s own experiment the way one wants, and then show that it produced better results.
- OrderlyTiamat 5y ago
  I'd just like to disentangle criticisms of the practice of peer review from whether this commenter is an expert or not. The former is valid or invalid irrespective of the latter.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

JonShartwell 5y ago

It’s absolutely in the spirit of science to question an experiment’s methods and results. If you disagree with the criticism then present some evidence. An appeal to authority is pretty unconvincing considering scientists have been confidently wrong about quite a lot in the past.

snowwrestler 5y ago
Criticism must bring substance as well. Sure, anyone can sit back and say “I don’t believe this, prove it better.” But without specific claims, such criticism can’t ever be answered and the conversation is not constructive or particularly scientific. One constructive approach to criticism here would be to take the documented imaging process and apply it to other data. If it produces results that don’t match existing evidence, that would be evidence it is flawed.
- JonShartwell 5y ago
  I don’t know, the criticism in OP seems pretty substantive to me. I don’t know much about this subject so I can’t really weigh in on how much the post makes sense but regardless appeal to authority is essentially the opposite of modern science. That’s why nullius in verba has been a motto of science for 300+ years. On that point, scientists don’t need you to chastise people for questioning their authority online. I think a lot of them would be offended at the idea that you think that is what they want.
  - fesoliveira 5y ago
    >I don’t know much about this subject so I can’t really weigh in on how much the post makes sense but [...] Then how can you say the criticism seems substantive? He brings nothing to the table to show that his criticism is valid, it's basically "I don't like, therefore wrong". The proper way criticize their paper would be conduct your own experiments using their parameters and methodologies and show that the results you obtain do not match theoretical results or results of other observations through other means. >On that point, scientists don’t need you to chastise people for questioning their authority online. I think a lot of them would be offended at the idea that you think that is what they want. We question their authority on this specific subject they seem to be criticizing. If you make a claim without having at least the background to support said claim, what value does it have? It's the same as a person without background in microbiology or virology claiming vaccines don't work when they don't even begin to understand the science behind it and the mountain of evidence that says otherwise.

pfortuny 5y ago

Sorry but as this is a press conI doubt the thing has really passed “peer review” properly speaking. There was some hype about: FTL events, life based on cyanide not phosphorus… Careful with “peer review” when the set of peers is invested in the same type of results.

wumpus 5y ago
We published 10 papers today.