• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Peer Review Promote Mediocrity?

Jack Hays said:
Thank you, and Merry Christmas, btw.:2wave:

In their zeal to attack me they have managed to put themselves in opposition to those who advocate scientific best practices.
Click to expand...

Merry Christmas to you Jack :2wave:
 
Jack Hays said:
Respect for sound scientific process has nothing to do with a personal conclusion regarding a specific question. Surely you don't claim that such figures as Richard Lindzen, John Christy or Henrik Svensmark are opposed to peer review? Or even Judith Curry, who is hardly a skeptic but has written persuasively on behalf of the need to acknowledge uncertainty? Do you think they are somehow not on the side of PNAS or Nature? Sorry, but your argument is childish.
Click to expand...

are they climate change deniers or something? not sure; i don't really follow that movement.

anyway, i'm happy that you once again have a thorough respect for peer review. i'm also glad that you've been able to successfully walk back your position again. see you next time you post a thread that implies that the process is tainted somehow.
 
Helix said:
are they climate change deniers or something? not sure; i don't really follow that movement.

anyway, i'm happy that you once again have a thorough respect for peer review. i'm also glad that you've been able to successfully walk back your position again. see you next time you post a thread that implies that the process is tainted somehow.
Click to expand...

Oh he's not implying anything. He's merely bringing to peoples' attention that questions are being asked and he has absolutely no opinion of his own.

Seems like he does that with every thread he posts.

Next headline:
Jack Hays doesn't deny killing and eating a unicorn in 2006.
 
Jack Hays said:
Since I've made no argument nor drawn any conclusions
Click to expand...

So you have nothing to debate. Is someone paying you to advertise?

Way to run away from your position and conclusions.
 
Helix said:
are they climate change deniers or something? not sure; i don't really follow that movement.

anyway, i'm happy that you once again have a thorough respect for peer review. i'm also glad that you've been able to successfully walk back your position again. see you next time you post a thread that implies that the process is tainted somehow.
Click to expand...

My position has never changed. You're the one who has been squirming to find a way to assail the unassailable. And yes, those I named are prominent climate scientists who are skeptical of AGW orthodoxy.
 
ecofarm said:
So you have nothing to debate. Is someone paying you to advertise?

Way to run away from your position and conclusions.
Click to expand...

I have run away from nothing. You've been debating against a fantasy of your own creation.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have run away from nothing. You've been debating against a fantasy of your own creation.
Click to expand...

You have no position, analysis, perspective or conclusion. Why are you in this thread?
 
Jack Hays said:
To present the PNAS paper and discuss it.
Click to expand...

You reject all discussion by claiming you have no position, misunderstanding the article and misrepresenting the article's conclusions.

This isn't "share.com", this is a debate website. What ya got? Nothing.
 
Threegoofs said:
...but not express any opinion on it!
Click to expand...

Well, if you claim peer review is not part of the scientific process and is a waste of everyone's time, and you simply accept whackjob websites as the true source of climate science, I'm sure he'd find his position somewhere.
 
ecofarm said:
You reject all discussion by claiming you have no position, misunderstanding the article and misrepresenting the article's conclusions.

This isn't "share.com", this is a debate website. What ya got? Nothing.
Click to expand...

No. What I reject are personal attacks on me. If you'd care to discuss the paper, please feel free.
 
Threegoofs said:
...but not express any opinion on it!
Click to expand...

No. I have done that. What I have not done is stoop to the level of those (like yourself) who would prefer to indulge in personal attacks on me rather than discuss the paper.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. What I reject are personal attacks on me. If you'd care to discuss the paper, please feel free.
Click to expand...

Everyone else has been discussing the paper and its implications on PR and wider science. You, however, have spent the thread crying victim. Until you have a position, supported by the paper or not, there's really nothing to discuss with you. Good day.
 
ecofarm said:
Everyone else has been discussing the paper and its implications on PR and wider science. You, however, have spent the thread crying victim. Until you have a position, supported by the paper or not, there's really nothing to discuss with you. Good day.
Click to expand...

I had the opportunity to express my view early in the thread and it hasn't changed, and your claim to have done anything other than indulge in personal attacks is a falsehood.
 
Jack Hays said:
I had the opportunity to express my view early in the thread and it hasn't changed, and your claim to have done anything other than indulge in personal attacks is a falsehood.
Click to expand...

You poor, poor victim.
 
ecofarm said:
Well, if you claim peer review is not part of the scientific process and is a waste of everyone's time, and you simply accept whackjob websites as the true source of climate science, I'm sure he'd find his position somewhere.
Click to expand...

This is simply a lying post.
 
Jack Hays said:
Everyone with integrity does. Your #33, 37, 59 and 61 are nothing more than personal attacks. The last has the distinction of including falsehoods.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I'm asserting that your claims are based in fantasy. When you realized your conclusions and the article's were not congruent, you changed to "I have no position at all".

Spare us all the victim card and just report posts you think violate rules. No one needs all the crying and whining.
 
ecofarm said:
Nonsense. I'm asserting that your claims are based in fantasy. When you realized your conclusions and the article's were not congruent, you changed to "I have no position at all".

Spare us all the victim card and just report posts you think violate rules. No one needs all the crying and whining.
Click to expand...

That is false. I have expressed my view in #10,17,21,29 and 32. I don't think you violated any rules, but you lied about my views.
 
Jack Hays said:
Everyone with integrity does. Your #33, 37, 59 and 61 are nothing more than personal attacks. The last has the distinction of including falsehoods.
Click to expand...

It has occurred to me there are perhaps some who have been on the low road for so long, they can't conceive a high road even exists.

This peer review issue certainly has merit. There is much documentation as well as studies related to the subject. I recall not long ago a major scandal regarding peer review was uncovered although I don't recall the specifics right now.

I have held several patents on manufacturing processes over the years resulting from my work with plastics. The potential to create results, or overlook roadblocks, was an ongoing issue. This was true even when the efforts of my team were reviewed by outside sources. As has been learned in many scientific disciplines, especially those with incredible attention being given to them (think room temperature super conductors) bias and other "noise" can and does creep into the process when so much is riding on confirming results.

It seems rather telling this possibility in other "popular" scientific efforts has brought out the "best" in many posters on this thread.
 
ocean515 said:
It has occurred to me there are perhaps some who have been on the low road for so long, they can't conceive a high road even exists.

This peer review issue certainly has merit. There is much documentation as well as studies related to the subject. I recall not long ago a major scandal regarding peer review was uncovered although I don't recall the specifics right now.

I have held several patents on manufacturing processes over the years resulting from my work with plastics. The potential to create results, or overlook roadblocks, was an ongoing issue. This was true even when the efforts of my team were reviewed by outside sources. As has been learned in many scientific disciplines, especially those with incredible attention being given to them (think room temperature super conductors) bias and other "noise" can and does creep into the process when so much is riding on confirming results.

It seems rather telling this possibility in other "popular" scientific efforts has brought out the "best" in many posters on this thread.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother.:applaud
 
It's very gratifying to see that, despite all the anti-science trumpeting on this forum, that volume does not make a consensus. It's disturbing to see how opposition to the economic implications of climate change have brought about such a movement that seeks to completely destroy science, and it's great to see that movement shot down so vigorously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom