Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-09-2014, 10:04 AM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(07-09-2014 12:44 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Well that's a load off my mind. Tongue

LMAO

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(08-09-2014 01:25 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(08-09-2014 01:20 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  Yeah look bro, screw peer review. It's not a magic wand. Understanding the underlying processes is far more important than claiming peer review. Peer review is the equivalent of "god did it" for the non-believer. Once something is said to be peer reviewed people stop thinking and scrutinising.

It is not necessary for something to be peer reviewed for it to be true. What is far more reliable is holding claims up to a certain standard of logic and reasoning. This entails that the underlying assumptions and facts be understood.

Peer review is not the meat of the matter.

Peer review helps eliminate bias and shows faulty methods. It is by far the best way to confirm true positive results and sort them from false positives. Peer review the the backbone of science, it is what separates real science from snake oil salesmen like Deepak Chopra.

...and Ken Ham Angry

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2014, 10:17 AM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(09-09-2014 01:21 AM)BlackMason Wrote:  
(08-09-2014 01:25 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Peer review the the backbone of science, it is what separates real science from snake oil salesmen like Deepak Chopra.

I disagree. The backbone of science is not peer review. By "backbone" I assume you mean most important. The backbone of science is logic and reason by way of observation. Without logic, reason and observation, one cannot have science. These elements are necessary. Peer review is the cherry on top. It is not necessary. It is pretty much optional. Repeatability is not peer review but peer review uses repeatability.

Peer review is a regulator; It is the referee. Your claim that it is the backbone is tantemount to saying a sport cannot be played without a referee. That is absolutely bogus! The ref is the cherry on top but hardly the most important element.

(08-09-2014 01:26 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  but you would rather trust the word of one man or confirmation from more than one party? I could say I have evidence of Bigfoot, you could either take my word or get others to examine the evidence and confirm it as well. I'm not saying just peer review would make it 100% but it would help make it more legit.

I would choose the word of one man so long as his formulation is logically sound and has reasonable conclusions. There is a logical fallacy known as appeal to popularity. What is important is HOW the group of many people are coming to their conclusions. Is their methodology logically sound? Are their conclusions feasible?

If not then we are just like theists who get satisfied with "god did it".

Quantum Physics is counter intuitive and seemingly illogical. Logic is not enough you need evidence. Peer review is a way to determine evidence and sort out fraud.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(09-09-2014 01:21 AM)BlackMason Wrote:  I would choose the word of one man so long as his formulation is logically sound and has reasonable conclusions. There is a logical fallacy known as appeal to popularity. What is important is HOW the group of many people are coming to their conclusions. Is their methodology logically sound? Are their conclusions feasible?

If not then we are just like theists who get satisfied with "god did it".

What your describing actually would be how theists do things, not peer review. Maybe your getting mixed up? Theists would provide "evidence" that to them would be "logically sound" and have "reasonable conclusions" and expect you to believe based on their "evidence" as they provide it. With Peer Review however, you can get either confirmation or criticism of your evidence and theory and what not before you publish it and make a fool out of yourself, unlike Theists. Also a lot of people tend to miss their own mistakes, and without peer review there would be a lot of misinformation out there. It is a very important part of science as it make's sure all information studied and tested is correct and misinformation is not being put out into the world.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2014, 11:14 AM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
Peer review might not be critical for science to be done, but it is necessary for the results to be trusted - especially by non-scientists like me who aren't qualified or able to evaluate the work on my own.

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2014, 01:01 PM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(09-09-2014 10:17 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Quantum Physics is counter intuitive and seemingly illogical. Logic is not enough you need evidence. Peer review is a way to determine evidence and sort out fraud.

I'm sorry but no. Peer review does not determine evidence. Peer review is merely for assurance. Logic and reason determines evidence and sorts out fraud.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(09-09-2014 01:01 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  
(09-09-2014 10:17 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Quantum Physics is counter intuitive and seemingly illogical. Logic is not enough you need evidence. Peer review is a way to determine evidence and sort out fraud.

I'm sorry but no. Peer review does not determine evidence. Peer review is merely for assurance. Logic and reason determines evidence and sorts out fraud.

No they do not. Logic is a construct and is limited. Quantum Mechanics are illogical and by your method would be wrong.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2014, 01:07 PM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(09-09-2014 01:04 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(09-09-2014 01:01 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  I'm sorry but no. Peer review does not determine evidence. Peer review is merely for assurance. Logic and reason determines evidence and sorts out fraud.

No they do not. Logic is a construct and is limited. Quantum Mechanics are illogical and by your method would be wrong.

Well; there's no single "Logic", either.

So there's that.

Big Grin

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2014, 01:07 PM
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(09-09-2014 01:01 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  
(09-09-2014 10:17 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Quantum Physics is counter intuitive and seemingly illogical. Logic is not enough you need evidence. Peer review is a way to determine evidence and sort out fraud.

I'm sorry but no. Peer review does not determine evidence. Peer review is merely for assurance. Logic and reason determines evidence and sorts out fraud.

Thing is you can make anything sound logical and reasonable, that doesn't make it true.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2014, 01:28 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2014 01:41 PM by BlackMason.)
RE: Jack The Ripper identity confirmed?
(09-09-2014 11:14 AM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  Peer review might not be critical for science to be done, but it is necessary for the results to be trusted - especially by non-scientists like me who aren't qualified or able to evaluate the work on my own.

I agree with you. My point of departure is when one hears something has been peer reviewed and they instantly accept the results.

Take the auditing and assurance services industry. This is the perfect example for what peer review is. A public company has an insentive to falsify it's financial results to attract more shareholders' money. This has the effect of raising their share price. An auditor is a sort of public protector. They make sure that the claimed profits of a company really are as claimed. If not, the auditor instructs the company to change what is reported in the financial statements. When the signature of the auditor appears on financial statements, it is a sign that the public can believe that what is reported by the company is mostly true.

This certainly does not mean that we should relax because auditors and regulators have failed. Remember Aurthur Anderson, the biggest and oldest auditing firm in the world? They fucked up with the Enron and World Com scandals. They kept signing off materially misstated financials as legitimate. This is an example of peer review gone wrong. Look at what's happened with Deloitte and African Bank here in South Africa.

Peer review is important but it is not sufficient to imply that all is well. It is far more important to understand the underlying assumptions involved. I usually criticise studies that are done on a small sample size of test subjects. One such example was one study done on around 1500 women to see if a g spot existed. This was peer reviewed and got all the bells and whistles for approval. However, I think that the sample size was rather small. While I don't believe a g spot exists because of the study, this example was to point out that someone may still reject the peer reviewed findings on reasonable grounds. In fact getting a sample size for an experment is a very subjective area of science.

I hope this made sense.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: