What Is Peer Review?

[DeepSpace8andahalf]

Look up "Dr. Bazant" & "crush up,  Crush Down"

and note that I say "peer review" (?)

Bah HUMBUG!

[crabbieappleton]

I agree, such a statement could only have been made by someone who has never submitted anything for peer review.

In my experience, peer reviewers are actively and eagerly looking for points of disagreement, flaws in argumentation, even bad writing.

[SuperPais]

Peer review is one a doctor agrees that his collegue monkey brain can write and read.

[jakestutheit1]

"...you only get to be a peer by agreeing with the current consensus."

You obviously have never taken part in a scientific study, or are familiar with the grueling, brutal, and sometimes humbling and humiliating process of a well done scientific study. I have been involved in several, and can tell you that you have never been more wrong in your life regarding this statement.

[SuperPais]

@jakestutheit1 They were brutal and etc to your ? I feel sorry.

[Ivor7777777]

The naïveté of the person who put this together is alarming,

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page

[JimmyNickNick]

Those were the biggest words ever.... 0_o

[keflar5]

lol the woman is right

[montgomeryprice]

ill post 1/3 in a bit. something is wrong with youtube...

[montgomeryprice]

@ianmac2010

You are basing your arguments on your ideology. Climategate, I.D., attacking peer-review and "Darwinism". You're just jumping in with the crowd that confirms your preconceptions.

How about you base your claims on evidence, instead of blindly asserting these things. Seriously. You have shown only how well you can parrot what you hear Glenn Beck and his ilk puke up, and without researching. Those using the emails DO NOT DO RESEARCH. THEY REPEAT MINDLESSLY.

/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

[montgomeryprice]

@ianmac2010 (2/3)

The difference is that String Theory makes a valid effort to create a scientifically viable theory, and ID does not.

Why isn't ID in scientific journals? IT'S NOT SCIENCE.

You can yell and whine about authoritarianism, and corruption, but your claims are just moot without support. You haven't shown anything supporting your side at all. If you are making the positive claim that ID is science. THEN EXPLAIN.

[ianmac2010]

"IT'S NOT SCIENCE"

It may or may not be "good" science, but it is a valid scientific theory.

The obvious reason why so many people demand ID not be regarded as a valid theory is because it was written by theists, and there is a great many atheists who despise everything theists do.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

[montgomeryprice]

@ianmac2010

It is not a valid scientific theory because there is nothing scientific about it. Any time it gets close to any sort of scientific verification, and opens itself up to falsification (which it rarely does), then it fails to meet any scrutiny.

If it was a viable theory, then every scientist in the world would be clambering for the greatest scientific revolution since evolution. Scientist try to prove each other wrong all the time, and ID would be a perfect chance but...

[ianmac2010]

@montgomeryprice

"It is not a valid scientific theory because there is nothing scientific about it."

Do you believe it fails in that it's not falsifiable? If not, tell me where exactly it fails to meet the official standard of a scientific theory.

"If it was a viable theory, then every scientist in the world would be clambering for the greatest scientific revolution since evolution. "

That is not how Science works. Old ideas are very hard to displace.

[montgomeryprice]

@ianmac2010 (3/3)

There is either corruption of the journals in relation to ID, or ID is not science. You have not shown how to discern what is corruption, you haven't shown any email that shows corruption, and you haven't shown ID to be science at all. ID has already been proven to NOT be science, even in a court of law.

Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.

[ianmac2010]

"you haven't shown any email that shows corruption"

I refuse to cut-and-paste CRU emails here. That has been debated elsewhere, and you have already shown what you think of that scandal.

By that, you have proven that you're unethical, and I have enough life experience to know that I cannot persuade anyone to have ethics by argument. You will just have to remain in the dark.

[montgomeryprice]

(1/3)@ianmac

If you claim peer reviewers to be corrupt and driven by agendas, what do you say about scientists that have opposing agendas? Because surely, all scientists are not of the same political, scientific, economic, or ideological persuasion as one may suppose in a corrupted system.

Because simply, an integral component of the scientific process is based on debate, and dispute over results and what can be concluded with the results. They fight with each other,

[ianmac2010]

@montgomeryprice

"If you claim peer reviewers to be corrupt and driven by agendas, what do you say about scientists that have opposing agendas?"

Corruption does not presume collusion. I don't suppose some grand, coordinated conspiracy. I suppose some tawdry, uncoordinated personal agendas.

I do not rule out coordination (Climategate) or groupthink (Darwinism), but every scientist is a human first. They frown on ideas that contradict their own and leach dollars away from themselves.

[montgomeryprice]

@ianmac2010

If they are uncoordinated and driven by DIFFERING personal agendas, then why is there consensus AND accurate predictions in nearly every scientific field. Science is based on the objectivity and reliability of knowledge claims.

What the hell is "Darwinism"?

Do you mean "Einsteinism"?

Or "Newtonism"?

and I'll ask you one more time:

By what standard do you determine what scientific knowledge is reliable, and produce one "climategate" email that shows unambiguous conspiracy.

[ianmac2010]

@montgomeryprice

"What the hell is "Darwinism"? "

Pull the other one.

"..why is there consensus.."

Because there are (some) dedicated, ethical people doing peer review the way it is supposed to be done, obviously.

And by your statements, I will assume you have read the Climategate emails, and by your comments, that you accept their actions as okay. You defend them.

THAT IS DESPICABLE.

STOP DOING SCIENCE.

YOU ARE UNETHICAL.

[montgomeryprice]

@ianmac2010

I'm not familiar with the expression "pull the other one."

And, you have not answered my requests.

1. How do you decide what is good science?

2. Produce one email explicitly and unambiguously indicative of conspiracy.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

EXPLAIN HOW YOU DISCERN CORRUPT SCIENCE FROM VALID SCIENCE.

PRODUCE JUST A SINGLE EMAIL.

...that is, if you have any confidence in your currently baseless assertions.

[ianmac2010]

@montgomeryprice

If you Googled the phrase, instead of taking the time to act precious, you would understand what I meant.

And if you defend the CRU emails, then you already know what is in them, so when I quote one, you will dismiss it because it doesn't contain (insert your phrase here).

By defending their unethical behavior, you become complicit. It is guild by acquiescence.

I guess if you (they) knew you were corrupt, you could change, but don't even understand what's wrong so you cant.

[ianmac2010]

@montgomeryprice

"And, you have not answered my requests"

By the way, I don't have to answer your requests.

I discern your leading me into endless, pedantic arguments.

In any case, you're just some anonymous nut who defends corrupt scientists who's guilt is plain to everyone.

Anyone who is unfamiliar with the case, Google Climategate. There are reams of information about the crimes (defined so by the UK Information Commissioner).

[montgomeryprice]

(2/3)

and everyone tries to prove everyone else wrong. All peer-reviewd science is published, and open to anyone who wishes to refute its findings.

So, why is it that we can come to such a consensus, that produces verifiable, accurate PREDICTIONS in several fields (even those observable to laymen such as Meteorology ) within this system that supposedly cannot produce reliable information? The products of modernity are based on this sort of process, and gained knowledge of each of the sciences.

[montgomeryprice]

@ianmac2010

And that journal loses its respect, reliability, funding, and future in the scientific community if the hundreds of scientists that utilize their journal find anything wrong with the entirely publicized information. If they are going to be authoritarian and group thinkers, then why not hide it in the first place? Because science is not authoritarian. It is based on objective, empirical evidence.

ID is not in journals BECAUSE IT IS NOT SCIENCE. Journals DISPROVE ID. Nothing wrong.

[ianmac2010]

@montgomeryprice

"ID is not in journals BECAUSE IT IS NOT SCIENCE"

Was there a vote about whether ID is valid science or is it just "understood"?

String theory is not valid science, yet it is not only published, but it has taken over Physics for the past 30 years.

In fact, loads of crap science has made it into peer review journals over the past decades, just not a single one about ID theory.

HMMM. I wonder why? Corruption!

Science is not authoritarian, my arse.

[ianmac2010]

"ID is not in journals BECAUSE IT IS NOT SCIENCE. Journals DISPROVE ID. Nothing wrong."

If ID were merely crap science, it would have been published somewhere and have been falsified by other papers, just like all other crap science is.

Instead we see a cabal of atheists proudly proclaiming that not a single paper has ever been published.

It seems that not all crap science is created equal.

And yeah, there is something wrong with that.

[gininginin]

@ianmac2010

ID is in journals though (in one crappy journal). Besides it doesn't take a journal to discredit it as pseudoscience.

1) A mere mousetrap suffices to discredit irreducible complexity

2) It makes no testable predictions whatsoever: Any evidence can be regarded as "the designer made it that way (and I have no idea why)"

3) There is no actual explanation in saying "Goddidit". It explains zero.

4) Natural laws already account for the features that we see in nature. No need 4 designer.

[ianmac2010]

@gininginin

1 Irreducible complexity only applies to living creatures. The mouse trap is only an analogy, and no analogy is perfect.

2 It predicts that some things could not have been the result of minor modifications. And as Darwin said, if something is discovered that could not have been produced as the result of minor changes, his theory collapses.

3 ID says nothing about God.

4 That is circular reasoning.

[gininginin]

@ianmac2010

1. The mousetrap demonstrates that the mere concept of IC is wrong. It is based on a false assumption: that a subset of components cannot have another function.

2. That prediction is based on a false positive (that it CANNOT be made of minor modifications). It is unscientific.

3. Replace God with designer, same thing.

4. No circular reasoning. If the known set of laws was incomplete, they would not explain all features of nature. But evolution does explain everything without design.

[ianmac2010]

@gininginin

1 The mousetrap is an analogy, maybe a bad one, but it doesn't prove anything. It was meant as an example.

2 You ignored what Darwin said about this.

3 God and designer are not necessarily the same thing.

4 Evo is a tautology.

[gininginin]

@ianmac2010

sigh whatever... I am not your teacher, stay with ID if you want. I hope it is of any use to you (designerdidit yay I know something). In the meantime, evolution is the base of most modern medicine.

[ianmac2010]

@gininginin

ID theory is just another theory, maybe it will turn out to be an important one, maybe it will turn out to be crap.

What is obvious is this. The instants and virulent prejudice against the theory is based not on the merits of the theory but on the personal animosity of thousands of scientists who can't see past their own closed-minded bigotry.

They hate the people and think tank that proposed the theory. That's a fact.

You bunch closed minded, prejudiced hypocrites.

[gininginin]

@ianmac2010

lolol calling names? ID is not hated, it is scorned as it deserves, along with flat-earth "theory".

-You don't know what theory is

-You don't understand evolution

- You cannot grasp that a concept can be proved false by a counterexample

- You ignore the fact that ID has already turned out crap. READ a bit.

- You are deluded by ID 'hiding' the fact that it's creationism

- You are delusional in conspiracy theories against ID

Keep embarassing yourself here if you want, I'm out.

[ianmac2010]

@gininginin "You don't know what theory is" You do not have enough information to make a statement like that. "You don't understand evolution" Nor that. "..can be proved false by a counterexample" That is not a scientific statement. "You are deluded by ID 'hiding' the fact that it's creationism" Source please. "You are delusional in conspiracy theories against ID" I have read many books on the subject and debate people for years. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[BrooklynRagtag]

@ianmac2010 I know these are old posts, but ID isn't a theory. It hasn't made the confirmed testable predictions that are necessary in order to qualify as a theory.

[montgomeryprice]

(3/3)

There are obviously reliable peer-reviewed papers out there, because you cannot deny the fact that if each were based on false information, the world would not operate nearly as grounded in scientific knowledge nowadays. So, tell us ianmac...

How does one determine what peers, journals, or scientific knowledge is correct?

What is the criteria to determine what knowledge is reliable?

[ianmac2010]

The concept is fine, but the practice leaves much to be desired.

Actual peer review is a mixed bag. Publishing research is obviously beneficial, but the dice are often loaded in this game.

You scoffed when I suggested you look into the Climategate scandal. Climategate is one of the worst scandals to hit academia in the past century, and your instant dismissal speaks volumes.

You are either blind or complicit. Which is it?

[ianmac2010]

You have a pollyanna view of peer review.

It's arbitrary, subjective, biased and often corrupt.

That's the dirty reality of peer review.

Oh, and it's NOT part of the scientific method. Everyone seems to think it is, but that's the other dirty little secret about sneer, I mean peer review.

[ThinkAbout1t]

@ianmac2010 The great thing about peer review, and science, is that it relies on evidence.

So put up, or shut up.

I don't claim peer review is perfect, nothing is perfect. But it's the best method we have available of weeding out misinformation.

[ianmac2010]

"I don't claim peer review is perfect.."

Far from being perfect, it is often arbitrary, biased, and tainted by the political and economic interests of those involved.

The problem appears not to be with the "system" of looking over your colleague's shoulder, the problem is the low ethical standards among academics.

You think academics are any more pure than politicians or used car salesmen?

And then there is the myth about how it "works," which is mere propaganda.

[montgomeryprice]

@ianmac2010

And also, what evidence do you claim supports the corruption of the scientific process?

Like I said, what is the criteria to determine what can be relied on?

[ianmac2010]

@montgomeryprice

If you pay any attention to scientists who dissent from any accepted theories, you will find evidence.

Or just Google "climategate".

[montgomeryprice]

Climategate? Seriously?

Produce any unambiguous email explicitly indicative of any extensive, inter-disciplinary, global, historical or unscientific conspiracy, and which cannot just as easily be interpreted as a legitimate disapproval, rejection, or suppression of peers, editors, or journals which are genuinely unreliable as means to produce valid scientific knowledge.

[ianmac2010]

@montgomeryprice

" Climategate? Seriously?"

Yes. Take Climategate seriously.

[montgomeryprice]

@ianmac2010

Would you please respond to my requests in my last post and in my 3 part post made a while before. (It is currently the 3 most recent comments on the video.)

Also, blind assertions will get you nowhere. Produce just one email.

[TheCodedAtheist]

@ianmac2010 - The peer review process isn't perfect, there is always a human element. Do you have a better option, because I'd sure like to hear it. Incidentally, you're remark bares the resemblance of one coming from many butt hurt creationist and grand conspiracy theorists. You're not one of those are you? LoL!

[rosun82]

@ianmac2010 What else can you do? A public vote including morons who don't understand anything?

[ThinkAbout1t]

In regards to all this... I've already said, I found a paper by Arp ON THE SUBJECT we're talking about. He's had articles published in Nature, as well as various astrophysics journals. He's not being censored, it's just that evidence stands to the contrary of his position now. Back in the 60's, when his research was cutting edge, it was a field of discussion. But the discussion is over, and his observations have been included in our knowledge of the universe. But they do not counter the Big Bang

[gaiatechnician]

I do not know about peer review as a process. Sure it helps keep science honest but it has no influence on the direction of science. I cannot get people interested in basic research on solar cookers. (Make a 2 hour dish, instead of a 15 minute parabolic dish). Deforestation in India is now so bad that people are being paid (with carbon offset money) to use solar cookers to cook their food.

I have shown in video that better dishes exist but no effort to direct research towards it. Brian

[stimpson65]

@gaiatechnician said "[peer review]... helps keep science honest but it has no influence on the direction of science."

Peer review isn't SUPPOSED to have any influence on the "direction" of science. In fact, if it did, that would be an indication that the process was NOT keeping science "honest".

[gaiatechnician]

@stimpson65 You should try to look at the big picture. I did stuff more than 20 years ago and many "scientists" said it cannot work publically and refused to test it. Some were interested and no funds were approved so they did not test it.

In 2009 an ordinary guy in England verified it. Peer review totally has an influence on the direction of science. They do not review everything, just the stuff they want to and the clearly commercial stuff. The magic in mundane processes is often missed.

[stimpson65]

I get it. Really, I do.

You have an idea and the scientific community tells you it's either not workable or is wrong.

So, rather than accept that and alter your approach or your premise, you go with the strategy "they are all wrong and I am right".

We get it.

You're mad at science for rejecting you and the people who control the purse strings don't like you personally. Understood.

Peer review is "bad" because it didn't agree with your ideas. You go ahead and run with that.

(sheesh!)

[gaiatechnician]

I was a lab technician. I did funded research.

So I was inside the system once, Were you?

I published the pulser pump. Including results and video. Even after that, people (like you) said it couldn't work or didn't get researched because it wasn't efficient enough. How you can know how efficient something is without testing it? The scientific method, observe and repeat and respond. If you did not repeat the experiment, you are not doing peer review OR following the scientific method.

[ThinkAbout1t]

@gaiatechnician Quite simple really, it's called science. You can know how efficient something is going to be by evaluating the various forces involved, the net output of energy resulting from those forces etc...

[gaiatechnician]

The pulser pump is a simple low pressure water driven pump that any fool could build. The easiest way to answer questions about its efficiency is to build one. Because it is based on 2 phase fluid flow, which is chaotic, which is poorly understood, and which is still being researched.

You build them first, then adjust the model to account for the experimental results. I know the old models are wrong because of my experimental results over several years.. I had plug flow, they had bubbles.

[ThinkAbout1t]

@gaiatechnician Ok, so?

Do you really know no one built or tested your pulser pump? I hardly see this as a problem with the scientific method or peer review, more with your job of advertising. If you want people to test something, point it out to them.

[gaiatechnician]

It is not "my" pulser pump. I gave it away to the community more than 20 years ago. The concept of using a tromp to power an airlift pump should be obvious to people but apparently it wasn't. (I did not even know tromps existed when I did my experiments in the late 1980's). Over 100,000 people have seen the pulser pump videos and ONE person has posted a response. I presume the rest of the viewers have broken arms or a total lack of will power.

[ThinkAbout1t]

@gaiatechnician I am having a very difficult understanding exactly what it is you're complaining about.

You say that rather than listen to your lab's proposal regarding this pulser pump, they ignored it and dubbed it too inefficient. Now you're telling me it's well propogated, just no one seems to care.

Sorry, but it seems to me that no one cares, that's all.

[gaiatechnician]

Have you seen the video? The world's simplest pump.

And you can see it at all about pumps (glowing review) and the internet glossary of pumps.

Something that might be of use in poor countrys, don't you think?

Science is not supposed to be a popularity contest.

Why are you making excuses for scientists NOT researching something? Isn't that odd behaviour? And I have seen that behaviour over and over and over again. If you could admit that the system is not perfect, we could improve it.

[ThinkAbout1t]

@gaiatechnician I'm not exactly making excuses, I'm moreso trying to understand the situation.

You came out saying this was an idea that was rejected by peer review. You then said it was well understood and had plenty of examples out there. Now you're citing sociological reasons.

What are you trying to say, that your idea was rejected by peer review (the original topic, and original claim), or that no one wants to invest into the industry/ R&D for said industry.

The two are very different.

[gaiatechnician]

Well, young man, peer review cannot be done with a typewriter despite what your think. If you saw the video, you could give an opinion on whether it has merit or not. And if you were a real scientist, you would of course back up your opinion with experimental results. Now, perhaps you could also read a couple of books from the asimov foundation series. The foundation people realized something was gravely wrong with empire "science" when it was decided by arguement rather than experiment.

[ThinkAbout1t]

@gaiatechnician I have watched your video, as was your suggestion, when you first told me.

What I keep on saying, is you aren't being very clear as to exactly what your problem is. Because I've taken multiple statements with multiple meanings (some conflicting) from your comments, and from your video, comments you've posted on your video etc...

What I'm asking for is clarification.

[gaiatechnician]

You are basically calling me a liar.

Have you an opinion on the merits of the pump?

Or will you plead the 5th?

[ThinkAbout1t]

@gaiatechnician No... I'm saying your statements are disjointed without centering around a central point.

What is it you are claiming to have occurred with the pump, in regards to peer review?

[gary031183]

@ThinkAbout1t Did you ever get a response? I am going to guess...no. lol.

[theinsane102]

A man was censored by the peer review process, because he had proof that the Hubble law of red shift/blue shift was wrong.

The peer review guy wrote on the paper, "this is beyond me."

and sent it back to the guy.

[ThinkAbout1t]

Where`d you get this from? Sounds a bit... wrong.

[theinsane102]

it happen to Halton Arp.

[13shadowwolf]

Peer reviewed means by many people, not "one peer review guy".

[theinsane102]

Yep, I know what peer review is, but papers get censored. If I had proof, that the universe is not expanding, and I published it on a peer review journal. It would not get published.

[13shadowwolf]

I don't believe this. If the paper was not well written, had logical holes, didn't clearly show train of evidence, or other significant problems it could be rejected. It would not be rejected if it was well written and showed backing evidence.

[theinsane102]

I dont care if you dont believe this, I myself dont have some hidden agenda against peer review. But halton arp found many galaxies colliding with completely different red shifts. He should it to his boss, and his boss sent it to a peer reviwer, and the peer guy didnt want to publish it.

[ThinkAbout1t]

It's not so much about belief or denial, you have made a claim and haven't provided any evidence towards it. Meanwhile, we've found a paper published under Halton's name about the subject you're talking about. So at this point if you can't produce anything, we're going to have to assume you've just been falsely informed by some rumour mill.

[theinsane102]

I saw it on a documentary titled the big bang is wrong, it had Arp himself say what a happen to him. I dont care about the Plasma universe people, but I think the peer review ssytem can be corupt in some places.

[ThinkAbout1t]

Was it in any way involved with John Kieren?

Because the proposal that the entirety of The Big Bang theory was incorrect based on compton effect vs. doppler effect is an invalid statement. The problem being that both cause red shift. They're not exclusive, but from consistent observation we can see that compton effect wouldn't be responsible for the consistent distancing of planets.

Indeed, the proposal itself doesn't even discredit the Big Bang theory, it merely points out another factor.

[theinsane102]

Oh, I guess the people saw what they wanted to see. huh.

[13shadowwolf]

I have been looking into Arp's theories. When they were proposed (in the 1960's) Arp didn't have a lot of backing evidence and might have gotten rejected, but I haven't found anything about a paper that was rejected and then challenged.

[dude12nothin]

You said "it merrly insures" like a goat. 1:02

[nervousneuron]

theory is how the world became, you will need a heck load of evidence to support it and a heck load of evidence to disprove competing theories.

Although how opinions may be limited is through which journal you get published in. It's not easy to get published in high impact journals, such as Science and Nature.

[nervousneuron]

Good video.

yes, 'bad' papers can and do make it past the peer review system and get published. But once this is done, anyone can read this paper, find the inconsistency and report on it. That's why sources always need to be cited, because maybe paper was based on a faulty previous study, and those citations can be checked.

People aren't 'silenced' for some conspiracy reason. For example, if you want to claim that say, creation

[SomeSlackerKnowsIt]

There is no place for opinions, bias, divination or faith in science. There are few fields where research is not fully unbiased. And no, those are not evolution, nor the origin of life.

[SomeSlackerKnowsIt]

Unfortunately, few people even understand what science really is.

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

Wow, I really liked the last picture in the video. That's a good quote and, even though it should be obvious to most people, it is a good thing to keep in mind. n_n thanks.

[happysplodie]

Wow... Peer review is not one strike and you're out, you can revise and resubmit. And most people have to.

Science is humble, allowing amazing freedoms for changes, but it holds conclusions to a set of standards. The peer review process helps us check the claims against the set standards.

Nice video.

[boxant]

Great video, short and to the point.

Hopefully more people will gain understanding into the workings of science :)

[Vinifera7]

Good response.

The peer review process isn't perfect, but it is what makes good science credible.

[JakobAmbrose]

Good video.

One Caveat: In the scientific world, peer review is to make sure the science is valid.

In English and other arts, peer review exists only to make sure you do not plagarize another's work. You submit a paper and they send it to an expert on that writer. Which kind of makes me wowder why it is called peer review to begin with because all it is if fact checking.

[ThinkAbout1t]

I really hate the distinction of scientific terms and common day terms. I always think in the scientific mindset and so the other meaning never even comes to mind. Thank you for bringing that up.

[dsexocet]

human nature goes hand in hand with peer review. Such nature always tries to find flaws in others ideas as we constantly strive to get one up on our competition, so that we can impress our intellectual superiority. If someone thinks that the peer review process is just full of 'yes men', I would guess they have never submitted anything that has been through such a process.