5 ms·

Intellectuals were writing letters explaining their findings(and asking for feedback) to each other and (math|royal|philosophical) societies all over Europe for

Intellectuals were writing letters explaining their findings(and asking for feedback) to each other and (math|royal|philosophical) societies all over Europe for 400+ years - shouldn't that count as an earlier form of peer review?

libraryofbabel 2y ago
This used to be the view among professional historians of science 25 years ago, but the consensus now in the field is that it’s anachronistic: it back-projects present day views of the scientific process onto the past, akin to looking at the first airplanes and calling then “an earlier form of the Boeing 747.” Depending on who you ask, people will say modern peer review arose in the Cold War or at the earliest in the 19th century. See this encyclopedia entry for a short summary of the issues by a historian: https://ethos.lps.library.cmu.edu/article/id/38/ https://ethos.lps.library.cmu.edu/article/id/38/
- throw_pm23 2y ago
  Why on earth would someone not call the first airplanes an earlier form of the Boeing 747?
  - throwaway19972 2y ago
    Perhaps because this wouldn't make sense in contexts where you're discussing what distinguishes the Boeing 747 from other planes. If you're comparing to, say, velocipedes, it makes a lot more sense.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    The first airplanes are an earlier form of the airplane. The 747 is a later form of the airplane. That doesn't make the earlier airplanes an early form of the 747. In the same way, cats are a smaller form of a mammal, and giraffes are a larger form of a mammal. That doesn't make cats a smaller form of a giraffe.
    - dleeftink 2y ago
      I'll bite: what doesn't make cats a smaller form of a giraffe? We just have to squint a little on the spiney level
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        The definition of giraffe is what makes a cat not a smaller form of giraffe. It has a definition, and the definition isn't just "thing with a spine" or even "mammal". From dictionary.com: "a tall, long-necked, spotted ruminant, Giraffa camelopardalis, of Africa: the tallest living quadruped animal." A cat does not fit that definition, no matter how hard you squint.
      - dogleash 2y ago
        ITT: Hacker News reinvents taxonomy from first principles.
  - traceroute66 2y ago
    > Why on earth would someone not call the first airplanes an earlier form of the Boeing 747? Because you need to draw the line somewhere reasonable. Otherwise, why don't we take your logic one step further and say an aluminum sheet is an earlier form of the Boeing 747 ? The difference between the Wright Brother's plane and a Boeing 747 is simply too enormous to be a logical "earlier form". The only thing the two share are the fundamental physics of aerodynamics. And even then, we are only talking the sort of shared aerodynamics you'll learn about at an aerospace museum on a school trip when you get to put a piece of cardboard in a wind tunnel. Its a bit like saying a donkey is an earlier form of a car. Well, sure, people used to use donkeys extensively for transport. But I think most people would agree calling it an earlier form of a car is pushing it.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - asdff 2y ago
    Imagine you are on an archeologic excavation and you find a roman chariot. Would you call this an ancient Honda Civic?
- Hilift 2y ago
  One of my neighbors conducted studies and published results for Lockheed in Georgia in the 1970's. This was during the development of very large transport aircraft, and solving the associated aerospace challenges. Those studies was usually cross-checked and reviewed by another PHD at another base (Wright-Patterson). The available pool of potential reviewers would have been small, and the profession was insular (US and NATO scientists mostly). Also, no one had a football field size wind tunnel, and computers were primitive/non-existent for simulations. One of them included printed source code. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA000431.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA000431.pdf
BurningFrog 2y ago
Current peer review is more adversarial.
- emmanueloga_ 2y ago
  Also, current peer review is a gateway to tenure, recognition, prestige, funding, influence... When you factor in that intellectuals are also, err, human, you get yourself a nice recipe for disaster. How many papers are actually replicable? How many are the result of citation cartels or outright fraud? I remember Shriram Krishnamurthi talking about artifact evaluation in papers [1]. I think that's a great initiative that should be adopted by all fields of science. -- 1: https://artifact-eval.org/ https://artifact-eval.org/
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Even worse, it was originally popularized by Robert Maxwell, yes that Maxwell, to save on the cost of paying an esteemed scientist in the field to sit down and do a serious review.
    - emmanueloga_ 2y ago
      I never heard about "that" Maxwell (1923-1991) [1]. Paraphrasing Wikipedia [2] [3]. "Robert Maxwell, described as a "British media proprietor, politician, and fraudster," founded Pergamon Press, an Oxford-based publishing house specializing in scientific and medical books and journals. Known for his flamboyant lifestyle, ultimately embezzled hundreds of millions from his own companies. Pergamon (originally Butterworth-Springer), was established in 1948 to bring "Springer’s know-how and aggressive publishing techniques in science" to Britain. Today, Pergamon Press operates as an imprint of Elsevier." I had no idea. Beyond wild! -- 1: Not to be confused with James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879), creator of "Maxwell's equations". 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pergamon_Press https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pergamon_Press

libraryofbabel 2y ago

This used to be the view among professional historians of science 25 years ago, but the consensus now in the field is that it’s anachronistic: it back-projects present day views of the scientific process onto the past, akin to looking at the first airplanes and calling then “an earlier form of the Boeing 747.” Depending on who you ask, people will say modern peer review arose in the Cold War or at the earliest in the 19th century. See this encyclopedia entry for a short summary of the issues by a historian: https://ethos.lps.library.cmu.edu/article/id/38/ https://ethos.lps.library.cmu.edu/article/id/38/

throw_pm23 2y ago
Why on earth would someone not call the first airplanes an earlier form of the Boeing 747?
- throwaway19972 2y ago
  Perhaps because this wouldn't make sense in contexts where you're discussing what distinguishes the Boeing 747 from other planes. If you're comparing to, say, velocipedes, it makes a lot more sense.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  The first airplanes are an earlier form of the airplane. The 747 is a later form of the airplane. That doesn't make the earlier airplanes an early form of the 747. In the same way, cats are a smaller form of a mammal, and giraffes are a larger form of a mammal. That doesn't make cats a smaller form of a giraffe.
  - dleeftink 2y ago
    I'll bite: what doesn't make cats a smaller form of a giraffe? We just have to squint a little on the spiney level
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      The definition of giraffe is what makes a cat not a smaller form of giraffe. It has a definition, and the definition isn't just "thing with a spine" or even "mammal". From dictionary.com: "a tall, long-necked, spotted ruminant, Giraffa camelopardalis, of Africa: the tallest living quadruped animal." A cat does not fit that definition, no matter how hard you squint.
    - dogleash 2y ago
      ITT: Hacker News reinvents taxonomy from first principles.
- traceroute66 2y ago
  > Why on earth would someone not call the first airplanes an earlier form of the Boeing 747? Because you need to draw the line somewhere reasonable. Otherwise, why don't we take your logic one step further and say an aluminum sheet is an earlier form of the Boeing 747 ? The difference between the Wright Brother's plane and a Boeing 747 is simply too enormous to be a logical "earlier form". The only thing the two share are the fundamental physics of aerodynamics. And even then, we are only talking the sort of shared aerodynamics you'll learn about at an aerospace museum on a school trip when you get to put a piece of cardboard in a wind tunnel. Its a bit like saying a donkey is an earlier form of a car. Well, sure, people used to use donkeys extensively for transport. But I think most people would agree calling it an earlier form of a car is pushing it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- asdff 2y ago
  Imagine you are on an archeologic excavation and you find a roman chariot. Would you call this an ancient Honda Civic?
Hilift 2y ago
One of my neighbors conducted studies and published results for Lockheed in Georgia in the 1970's. This was during the development of very large transport aircraft, and solving the associated aerospace challenges. Those studies was usually cross-checked and reviewed by another PHD at another base (Wright-Patterson). The available pool of potential reviewers would have been small, and the profession was insular (US and NATO scientists mostly). Also, no one had a football field size wind tunnel, and computers were primitive/non-existent for simulations. One of them included printed source code. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA000431.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA000431.pdf

BurningFrog 2y ago

Current peer review is more adversarial.

emmanueloga_ 2y ago
Also, current peer review is a gateway to tenure, recognition, prestige, funding, influence... When you factor in that intellectuals are also, err, human, you get yourself a nice recipe for disaster. How many papers are actually replicable? How many are the result of citation cartels or outright fraud? I remember Shriram Krishnamurthi talking about artifact evaluation in papers [1]. I think that's a great initiative that should be adopted by all fields of science. -- 1: https://artifact-eval.org/ https://artifact-eval.org/
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Even worse, it was originally popularized by Robert Maxwell, yes that Maxwell, to save on the cost of paying an esteemed scientist in the field to sit down and do a serious review.
  - emmanueloga_ 2y ago
    I never heard about "that" Maxwell (1923-1991) [1]. Paraphrasing Wikipedia [2] [3]. "Robert Maxwell, described as a "British media proprietor, politician, and fraudster," founded Pergamon Press, an Oxford-based publishing house specializing in scientific and medical books and journals. Known for his flamboyant lifestyle, ultimately embezzled hundreds of millions from his own companies. Pergamon (originally Butterworth-Springer), was established in 1948 to bring "Springer’s know-how and aggressive publishing techniques in science" to Britain. Today, Pergamon Press operates as an imprint of Elsevier." I had no idea. Beyond wild! -- 1: Not to be confused with James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879), creator of "Maxwell's equations". 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pergamon_Press https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pergamon_Press