In the case of the global warming issue, the ****wads that claim there is some sort of scientific consensus are ignorant and/or frauds.
The most oft cited papers by the global warming doomsday cultists were thoroughly debunked a long time ago. They used fictional data to come to their conclusions.
Then wikileaks published their e-mails. It wasn't just shoddy science, it was clearly a conspiracy to commit fraud.
ahh, so we venture into CT country.
In the case of the global warming issue, the ****wads that claim there is some sort of scientific consensus are ignorant and/or frauds.
The most oft cited papers by the global warming doomsday cultists were thoroughly debunked a long time ago. They used fictional data to come to their conclusions.
Then wikileaks published their e-mails. It wasn't just shoddy science, it was clearly a conspiracy to commit fraud.
:lamoThe consensus changes. That's what science means--it changes.
I call BS. I don't believe you for even a nanosecond.I Stopped reading when I got to that point.
There's thousands of them.Please provide example of the emails you're speaking of?
There's thousands of them.
Just f'n google it .
ahh, so we venture into CT country.
Peer review just means it's been published in a professional journal. Many things are published that are quickly rebutted and proven wrong. So, the term "peer review" on its own is of limited value. You have to ask, more questions to get a better idea of the significance of the findings.
1. How many different peer reviewed research projects have come to the same conclusion?
2. Are there significant rebuttals to those papers? If so, what do they say and how does that evidence stack up against the evidence in favor?
3. How widely has this issue been studied, and for how long?
4. Is there a consensus within the professional community, or is this still a controversial topic?
The peer review process tends to root out logical fallacies. As far as those who cite peer reviewed research in order to support their argument, it may or may not be a fallacious appeal to authority, depending on how they are citing it and what point they are trying to make.
In the case of the global warming issue, citing the fact that there is a clear scientific consensus that global warming is real and human actions are largely to blame is not a logical fallacy, it is a legitimate appeal to authority and a fairly strong argument. On the other hand, it's not an automatic "I win!". The fact there is extensive peer reviewed research on the topic and there is a consensus that it all points in a specific direction does not mean it is automatically correct, it just means that it is the most plausible explanation scientists are aware of thus far.
Truth is always being sought, and peer-reviewed and peer-criticized articles are both imperative.
But I would like to correct you on the meaning of "peer-reviewed," if I may. There are journals that are not peer-reviewed, so it's incorrect to say that "peer-reviewed means that it's been published in a professional journal. It means that it has been published by a juried/refereed/peer-reviewed professional publication.
Peer review is checking each other's work. Obviously, this is superior to not checking each other's work. Any work not at least checked by others is conjecture at best. But that this all began with someone trying to contest global warming doesn't surprise me. That argument always seems to involve trying to invalidate the scientific method itself.
But that this all began with someone trying to contest global warming doesn't surprise me. That argument always seems to involve trying to invalidate the scientific method itself.
I was wondering if Peer Reviewing can be a bunch logical fallacies? I know its important in fields of research to back up what the claim is, but can peer reviewing can be use as a type of Genetic Fallacy, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Belief?
Peer review is certainly a flawed process. However, it is better than whatever is in second place.
Huffington Post said:ResearchGate found itself at the center of an international scientific scandal last year -- members of the social network revealed critical errors and deliberate misrepresentations in a high-profile Japanese stem cell study published in the journal Nature.
The researchers also share failed experiments, in order to prevent others from repeating their mistakes.
The alternative is Research Gate. And it is not in second place. It has over 7 million members, about 95% of all active scientists in the world.
But, if you are a global warming denier, I wouldn’t get too excited. Research Gate checks your credentials. You are not allowed to register unless you actually ARE a scientist and have documents to support that claim. Also, while there are no referees per se, it is self-policing in that any member can flag a problematic paper. I did: I caught someone plagiarizing off of someone else and brought this to the attention of the administrators. Plagiarist busted!
So you are suggesting that 95% of scientists either practice or desire an alternative to peer review? I mean peer review to back up scientific theories, not peer review to bust plagiarists.
The alternative is Research Gate. And it is not in second place. It has over 7 million members, about 95% of all active scientists in the world.
But, if you are a global warming denier, I wouldn’t get too excited. Research Gate checks your credentials. You are not allowed to register unless you actually ARE a scientist and have documents to support that claim. Also, while there are no referees per se, it is self-policing in that any member can flag a problematic paper. I did: I caught someone plagiarizing off of someone else and brought this to the attention of the administrators. Plagiarist busted!
'Facebook for Scientists' Could Change Science Research For Good -- And For The Better
Researchers who have been caught fabricating data immediately come to the attention of Research Gate because they are such a huge network that they have contacts at every journal. In contrast, because traditional peer reviewed journals are so cloistered, they are often unaware that a paper they are reviewing has already been retracted elsewhere, which is why Retraction Watch was recently created. But even with Retraction Watch on guard, it is still generally true that Research Gate always knows about and bans papers with fake data while editors of traditional journals tend to ignore events at competing journals.
The Huffington Post article brings up another good point:
Even if researchers are not fabricating their data, only “interesting” experiments are published in peer-reviewed journals. This creates a bias towards positive results just as much as outright fabrication does. A lot of negative data on medical treatments is tossed because failed experiments are considered uninteresting. But then one doctor who was simply lucky to have a bunch of patients with a strong will to live manages to publish a paper giving himself credit for his brilliant treatment program. I discuss this phenomenon in more detail here:
Scientific Method, Groundless Guesswork – Same Thing?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?