The Problems With Peer Review In Establishing New Science .

[Guest]

          I have noticed many skeptics use the line"show me in a peer reviewed journal" . I want to point out some of the real problems with the peer review process .  How many ground breaking theories would have been published in the past ? Imagine Darwin trying to publish Origins if he did it today . Newtons Principia .Scientis use the peer review card to silence scientific dissent . Kind of hypocritical to use non peer reviewed venues like the media to push your views on the public . Then use the rhetorical sneer of "does your view appear in a peer reviewed journal ?" when someone has a dissenting view .

         The peer review system often is biased against non majority veiw points . Scientific theory that challenges conventional wisdom often faces challenges that have nothing to do with science but are political in nature . The overwhelming flaw in the traditional peer review system is that it listed so heavily toward consensus that it showed little tolerance for genuinely new findings and interpretations.Today, the refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy.  Far to often the referee is quite often not as intellectually able as the author whose work he judges. We have pygmies standing in judgment of giants.

   Finally a link where scientists tackle the problem . The comments are very valuable to .

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/

   With all of the problems of peer review how will science ever take a good look at the questions raised in this forum ? How will science ever invest what it will take to study bigfoot ?

Edited June 28, 2013 by orygundewd

[Guest wudewasa]

True, and each journal has different criteria for submitting research.  A committee reviews the research, suggests corrections and reevaluates conclusions.  It's a long, often frustrating process.

 

So why submit research that is difficult for a committee to accept? Present a body of a sasquatch along with the necessary description, and the issue is solved.

[Guest DWA]

Read James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds.

 

There's a good chapter in there about the groupthink that is mainstream science.  On the one hand, he points out, it is good.  Harebrain stuff doesn't go mainstream easily.  Loose ends tend to get tied up.  Researchers know their research had better be sound.  Scrutiny will be done.

 

(Usually.)

 

Then there's the downside.  To paraphrase Surowiecki, you have to trust in the integrity, flexibility, insight and gut of the mainstream.  Ideas they don't like are going to have a hard row to hoe even if they are valid.  They aren't going to even look at stuff they don't consider seriously. 

 

And asking for peer-reviewed work from someone who's trying to get peer-reviewed but can't because the topic is out of hand considered taboo is disingenuous to say the least.

This is just circular reasoning.  Considering something invalid because it hasn't been peer reviewed simply ignores Max Planck:

 

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

 

And also Michael Crichton:

 

I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

 

Peer review happens when the mainstream is ready.  Which on some topics isn't just now.

 

[Guest Urkelbot]

Your skipping over a lot of major scientific breakthroughs since Darwin.  Einsteins relativity or watson crick DNA for example.

 

The work of Carl  Woese in the 70s/80s completely upset the general view of the tree of life by adding Archaea to go along with prokaryotes and eukaryotes. 

 

There can be reluctance from some scientists to accept new ideas but if the science can be backed up and proven it is eventually accepted.

[Guest Grifter9931]

You need actual proof of the hypo???

 

Like DNA or Body or a Skeleton or anything that neutral folks can say well that looks to be something that isn't man made...

Or better yet lets use all the BF in a fridge evidence etc or the tent pictures or ....... I give up.

 

 

Urkelbot

 

"There can be reluctance from some scientists to accept new ideas but if the science can be backed up and proven it is eventually accepted."

 

If you could make people understand this it would be awesome...

[Guest zenmonkey]

I thought this was only a problem for Melba............rough crowd tonight

[Guest]

Step 1 - obtain piece of bigfoot.

Step 2 - describe piece of bigfoot as have been described over 1,000,000 holotypes in the scientific literature.

Step 3 - submit paper to journal of choice.

Step 4 - stand back as editors trip over themselves to rush your paper into print.

Step 5 - pop cold one and wait for media to beat a path to your door.

[dmaker]

Careful, that first step is a doozy!

[chelefoot]

Melba is the only one who has tried, right?

Careful, that first step is a doozy!

So is the fourth...

[dmaker]

Melba didn't have Monkey. And by the majority of accounts, her science was garbage. 

[chelefoot]

Agree^^

[Guest Grifter9931]

All science is garbage if "we" have to stand up to peer review....

 

 

Signed "BF, UFO's, The Easter Bunny, Vampires, Unicorns, Lycans, Thunderbirds & Smurfs"

Edited June 29, 2013 by Grifter9931

[Guest DWA]

That's not exactly displaying understanding of the issue.

 

Flat earthers wouldn't have looked at a paper saying they were wrong.  That's the issue.

[Guest Grifter9931]

I am glad we currently live in more enlightened times.

Also how was it proven the earth wasn't flat?

People went out and got "evidence" that it wasn't...

 

We don't live in those taboo times of witch craft and people getting burned at the stake.

So produce any compelling evidence that doesn't entail me or anyone having to make any logical leaps of faith.

Having to play detective or play where's BF in a photo or a video.

 

And while we are asking for the impossible, lets just have a body or a skeleton or anything a reasonable neutral human being would have no problem saying. Ohh there's BF. I am positive of it.

 

For a land based creature, BF has to be up there as being the most elusive. It's almost as if he isn't there.

 

Also I do understand the issue. I chose not to make excuses and lead the tin foil parade.....

The reason  "peer review" is currently the standard by which most of the scientific community relies on to proof new science and theories is because we make mistakes even honest ones. And if it can stand up to people in your field asking questions without the "science" falling apart. Then guess what happens?

 

The scientific community takes the work seriously and you aren't deemed a lunatic or a fraud... 

That may not be important to folks of BFF's. But if you are a scientist then that should matter.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Grifter9931

[Guest]

   With all of the problems of peer review how will science ever take a good look at the questions raised in this forum ? How will science ever invest what it will take to study bigfoot ?

 

Simple answer: they won't.  Not willingly.  The history of science is the history of the established zeitgeist and it's resistance to change.  Reforms of the "received text" (ie, the "scientific consensus") come only after "storm and thunder" and much intellectual bloodletting before the new zeitgeist is established (or not).

 

And it's all based on the self-righteous assumption by "scientists" that they and they alone are the supreme arbiters of fact and truth.  They have established a complicated system by which they not only determine what truth is, but how to define truth in the first place and what the standards are for determining it.

 

Bringing change to science is like a person going to court to find that not only did the same body of people who are accusing him of a crime write the law, but they're the prosecution, judge, AND jury.  And whatever they find (no matter how biased or irrational the decision), the accused has no venue, no "court of appeal" to which he may apply for relief.

True, and each journal has different criteria for submitting research.  A committee reviews the research, suggests corrections and reevaluates conclusions.  It's a long, often frustrating process.

 

So why submit research that is difficult for a committee to accept? Present a body of a sasquatch along with the necessary description, and the issue is solved.

 

 

Perfect example of what I was saying: a body and ONLY a body is sufficient evidence to establish the case.  Never mind the mountains and mountains of eyewitness data, scientific data derived from analysis of tracks, films, etc.  There are still people that would even deny DNA as sufficient proof of a new species (assuming we can ever get a clean presentation of such data to begin with).

 

"Science" not only has set the goal line, but it has decreed that there is ONE and ONLY ONE way to get from the start line to the goal line.