Article Link: What Is 'peer Review', And How Does It Work?

[Guest Cricket]

I think the article pretty much sums it up as it is; even with the flaws, peer review generally works, science generally works, and we have many benefits in our daily lives that attest to that.  Critique is a fundamental part of doing science, and you are trained to think that way, ideally regarding your own ideas as well as the ideas of others.  It can get pretty tense at times (I've witnessed prolonged heated exchanges in public presentations), but I think there are checks and balances in place.  Do they prevent all instances of bias and politics?  No.  I can say, however, that I attended the annual conference of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists for several years in the late 90's to early 2000's (St. Louis, Columbus, Kansas City, and Buffalo) and I definitely recall seeing that Dr. Meldrum had a poster on Bigfoot at least one of those meetings.  I can look to see if I have any of the itineraries saved from those meetings to check to make sure whether it was a poster or an actual presentation, but my instinctive memory of it was that it was a poster.  The posters are up for anyone to see for the duration of the entire conference, so in some ways having a poster could have reached more people than a 15 to 30 minute presentation with limited seating.  So Bigfoot research hasn't been entirely barred from what is probably the main yearly professional conference of physical anthropologists.  But I agree with DWA, if if there are problems with bias in mainstream science, that shouldn't stop anyone from properly and systematically investigating whatever issue regarding BF that they think is worth pursuing.  

Edited June 17, 2017 by Cricket

[Guest DWA]

There are absolutely no problems with peer review when the people doing the reviewing are open to the possibility.  Entering with mind prima facie closed is a non-starter.

 

My problem with mainstream scientists is that every time I hear one talk about this I hear at least one of the following rationales, all inadmissible:

 

1. The fossil record for an animal that people are seeing and that is leaving tracks now;

2. The 'someone would definitely have X by now,' without considering that it might already have happened (and all the ones I've heard cited have happened, more than once), but the nature of the topic ensured we wouldn't know about it except through mainly anonymous reports that aren't considered in the discussion;

3. A 'percentage chance' that they're real, like 5% (if you put a number in a scientific discussion you need to say where you got it);

4. Including hoaxing and misidentification as absolute disqualifiers, when they don't even factor into the discussion due to the sheer volume of consistent reports for which neither appears remotely likely;

5. 'No one ever sees one,' when logic dictates that the reports are the tip of the iceberg given the nature of the topic;

 

...well, those are enough.  I have a standing challenge that anyone telling me why this isn't real will use four of them in the first 30 seconds; and of course any single one of them is fatal to the case.

 

As sad as it may be, they appear to need a body dumped on their desks, despite a pattern of evidence for which only one parallel exists:  animals confirmed by science. The above indicates denial as the reason this is the only one that hasn't been...except for the other hominids worldwide for which similar patterns exist.

Edited June 19, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

How do you know that an anti-bigfoot bias exists in peer review? You're making assumptions. Do you have claims from the scientific proponents that they attempted to submit bigfoot evidence for peer review, but were unfairly denied? If so, now would be the time to support your claim. 

 

You will not, however. We all know this. 

 

[hiflier]

Boy, if anyone needed a good sound 'Good Luck On Getting That Answer" it's you, dmaker. How about I draft a letter to that effect as sort of a poll for scientists to answer? I would ask everyone to copy and paste it into an email to their local college or university heads but I don't want to run the risk of someone coming along and accusing me AGAIN of trying to get someone to do my work for me. I want this Sasquatch enigma solved. And I want it more than anyone else as far as I can see. Otherwise I'd spend my time in the field trying to see if I could add a footprint cast onto the pile of the already existing ones. So I could say, "I found a footprint, I found a footprint, and you-u didn't". (sung to the melody of nah, nah, nah, nyah, nah).

Edited June 20, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Anti-hoax bias would be more accurate.