Do you Compartmentalize?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-05-2016, 05:43 AM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2016 06:32 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 02:52 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Facepalm

The WORK, if done properly and after peer-review, will be free of bias and prejudice...not the humans creating the WORK.

You are bordering on being called intellectually challenged or Troll.

Ah so in your view the human bias and prejudices, the individual biases and prejudices of any particularly scientist is not eliminated in this process. At least we're in agreement on this point right?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2016, 06:30 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(12-05-2016 03:01 AM)Stevil Wrote:  A scientist can produce perfect papers and flawed papers. Flawed papers will be called out during peer review.


So you believe. Should be a testable hypothesis right, on the efficacy rate of peer review in weeding out flaws.

Lets say a scientist submits a study “concocted wholesale and stuffed with clangers in study design, analysis and interpretation of results” to 300 peer reviewed journals. How many of them do you think would pick up on this, and reject it for publication? It’s been done, slightly over half accepted it for publication.

What does that say about the efficacy of peer review?

Another famous study by DP Peters and SJ Ceci, took twelve published studies from prestigious institutions, retyping them, made some minor changes to the title, abstract, and introductions, and and changed the author’s name and institutions, using no-named institutions in replace of them , and resubmitted them back to the institutions that originally published these studies. In only 3 of the cases did the journals realize they already published the paper. The interesting part is that 8 of the 9 remaining were also rejected, “not because of lack of originality but because of poor quality. Peters and Ceci concluded that this was evidence of bias against authors from less prestigious institutions.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

What does this suggest about the efficacy of peer review?

The truth here is that science fan boys, have been drinking the Kool-aid for so long, that they have fantasies about shit like peer-review, that don’t actually correspond to the reality of it.

Quote:It is a fair comment, to discover that a paper isn't adhering to the scientific method, hopefully the author will go back and correct the issue.

Yes, hope thats pretty much all you have, a hope that's likely to have you disappointed. When researchers attempted to gauge what percentage of the peer reviewed studies succeeded on reproduction, they found that they failed more than succeeded in replicating the results. This wasn't realized in the peer review process, but when a series of independent researchers wanted to gauge the efficacy of peer reviewed studies.

So it goes without saying that many of these published studies, of 1.5 million that get published every year, go without the authors the researchers, knowing their flaws, they're likely not to care either. They did their job, they got published, received the grant they're working on, their mortgages are paid, the lights are still on.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2016, 06:35 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(12-05-2016 06:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-05-2016 03:01 AM)Stevil Wrote:  A scientist can produce perfect papers and flawed papers. Flawed papers will be called out during peer review.


So you believe. Should be a testable hypothesis right, on the efficacy rate of peer review in weeding out flaws.

Lets say a scientist submits a study “concocted wholesale and stuffed with clangers in study design, analysis and interpretation of results” to 300 peer reviewed journals. How many of them do you think would pick up on this, and reject it for publication? It’s been done, slightly over half accepted it for publication.

What does that say about the efficacy of peer review?

Another famous study by DP Peters and SJ Ceci, took twelve published studies from prestigious institutions, retyping them, made some minor changes to the title, abstract, and introductions, and and changed the author’s name and institutions, using no-named institutions in replace of them , and resubmitted them back to the institutions that originally published these studies. In only 3 of the cases did the journals realize they already published the paper. The interesting part is that 8 of the 9 remaining were also rejected, “not because of lack of originality but because of poor quality. Peters and Ceci concluded that this was evidence of bias against authors from less prestigious institutions.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

What does this suggest about the efficacy of peer review?

The truth here is that science fan boys, have been drinking the Kool-aid for so long, that they have fantasies about shit like peer-review, that don’t actually correspond to the reality of it.

Quote:It is a fair comment, to discover that a paper isn't adhering to the scientific method, hopefully the author will go back and correct the issue.

Yes, hope thats pretty much all you have, a hope that's likely to have you disappointed. When researchers attempted to gauge what percentage of the peer reviewed studies succeeded on reproduction, they found that they failed more than succeeded in replicating the results. This wasn't realized in the peer review process, but when a series of independent researchers wanted to gauge the efficacy of peer reviewed studies.

So it goes without saying that many of these published studies, of 1.5 million that get published every year, go without the authors the researchers, knowing their flaws, they're likely not to care either. They did their job, they got published, received the grant they're working on, their mortgages are paid, the lights are still on.

Oh OK. Let's give up on science then OK. Next time you get sick, you just pray, OK ?
No more science for Tommy.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
12-05-2016, 06:37 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 04:13 PM)SYZ Wrote:  I notice that you seem preoccupied with attacks on scientists themselves, rather than their theories. You mistakenly seem to think that by denigrating scientists and science, you reinforce your own case in favour of mythical gods and an imaginary heaven and hell etc.

I think it's interesting that pointing out that scientist are human too, that science is a human endeavor, plagued by the same problem that inflict all other other human endeavors, is deemed as an attack on scientist, and science as a whole.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2016, 08:32 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
Just waiting on ol' TommyBoy to acknowledge this:

Just to make it painfully clear what you asked for: "So show me, show me a published study, in which the researcher had a strong bias going into it, which his/her bias was eliminated in process of peer review. You claim there's a lot. Show me some."

And what I delivered:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...York_State

And then your ignored it. Put up or shut up. I gave you an example of exactly what you asked for. Admit your bullshit.


In the meantime, let's point out some more of TommyBoys straw men he's constructed as he's tried to move the goal posts.

"I think it's interesting that pointing out that scientist are human too..."

Did anyone say scientists weren't human?

"...that science is a human endeavor..."

Has anyone said science isn't a human endeavor? (I know I have specifically said it WAS a human endeavor)

"...plagued by the same problem that inflict all other other human endeavors..."

This is where the real bullshit starts. At any point, has anyone ever said that science is perfect and free of mistakes or errors? If so, show us exactly who said it, when, and in what post.

"...is deemed as an attack on scientist, and science as a whole."

Your straw men and misconceptions about science and scientists aren't perceived as "attacks on scientists or science," they are pointed out to you for the errors they are. The fact that YOU keep asserting your ignorance as knowledge, is an assault on human intelligence.



What I find interesting is your arrogance. The arrogance that you know science better than actual scientists. The arrogance that you know a person better than they know themselves. The arrogance that others have the burden of proof if they make claims, but not you. The arrogance to ask for and then ignore a specific piece of evidence that would prove your assertions/claims wrong.

Maybe you should pray for clarity Laugh out load

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
12-05-2016, 12:32 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
Drinking Beverage Still waiting.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(12-05-2016 06:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think it's interesting that pointing out that scientist are human too, that science is a human endeavor, plagued by the same problem that inflict all other other human endeavors,
It's great that the scientific method recognises this and has measures in place to counteract it. Recognition of human biases isn't an attack on science it is highlighted and addressed by the scientific method.

What does religion do to address human biases?
The catholic church merely claim that they are divinely guided and infallible. So in this way they ignore the issue and make a bold assertion that they can't possibly be wrong.
The scientific community never claims to be infallible.

The catholic church makes claim after claim after claim, doesn't back any of it up with real world evidence and simply demands that their followers believe the claims.

Science on the other hand publish papers, showing the evidence, the tests, highlighting the assumptions, describing how they inferred the conclusion from the data. They highlight whether they did double blind tests, whether they used control groups, whether they used placebos.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
12-05-2016, 01:51 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(12-05-2016 01:10 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's great that the scientific method recognises this and has measures in place to counteract it. Recognition of human biases isn't an attack on science it is highlighted and addressed by the scientific method.

You should stop making science nebulous, by replacing "scientific method" recognizes this, address this, etc, and speak of what actually takes place in the real world. If you claimed that peer reviewed scientific journals recognize this, actually no they don't, not in any consistent, or effective way. When you can make up a study whole-cloth submitted to over 300 peer reviewed journals and find that over half of them accepted it for publication, what does that say about their ability to recognize and counteract such mistakes? What does it say about it when most of the studies that have gone through peer-reviewed, and accept for publication, fail on replication?

If a car manufacture produced cars with a 50% failure rate, I doubt you would call it a reliable automobile, or say their manufacturing process recognizes and counteracts automative failures.

Quote:What does religion do to address human biases?

I'm not the one claiming the religion cures human biases. You're selling the scientific method as some magical elixir that cures human biases and prejudices.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2016, 01:57 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(12-05-2016 01:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You should stop making science nebulous, by replacing "scientific method" recognizes this, address this, etc, and speak of what actually takes place in the real world. If you claimed that peer reviewed scientific journals recognize this, actually no they don't, not in any consistent, or effective way.

Oh OK, Tommy can advise the science community on how to improve science. Right. Thank God for that. Science can now breathe a sigh of relief and move up a notch in human society. Oh wait. It's already at the top.

Quote: If you claimed that peer reviewed scientific journals recognize this, actually no they don't, not in any consistent, or effective way.

Prove it. With 10 examples.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
12-05-2016, 01:59 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
Still waiting Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: