Peer Reviews and Scientific Consensus

[speedy 0]

http://newsbusters.org/node/12585

"Peer reviewed" is a term that is tossed around a lot here in speakers corner. I don't know who Dr. Robert Higgs is or if his views have been peer reviewed, but it was an interesting read non the less.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[philh 0]

Peer review is a key step in science. It is the process of qualified person reviewing new work, checking results, going over your work with scrutiny etc etc. given it is done by human being it has its flaws. But what would you prefer? No peer reivew? Peer review is an essnetial filter to stop grabage entering into scientific journals, it is not perfect but it is the best we have. Dr Higgs suggests no improvement or better alternative and so I would pay him little credence.
The whole artciels smells of the awful straw man:" x has been wrong in the past and so they must be wrong now " do I need to point out the ridculous logic of this argument?

[JackC 0]

Robert Higgs (the quoted author) does make some valid points in his complete article but he also misses a few that a man in his position probably shouldn't.

Just like democracy, peer review isn't perfect but it is the best system we have. In order to get your research published in a reputable journal, it has to be sent out to peer review. That means that two (or more) experts in the field scrutinize your work checking it for factual errors, inconsitencies and general quality etc. Only if it passes will it get published. That stops complete trash making it into what is collectively known as "the literature".

Now if a paper does slip through this part, as happens from time to time, there are a whole raft of researchers who are waiting to jump on it and publish their own corrections. Peer review doesn't just stop at publication. There is a constant debate going back and forth on the relative merits of any research. Only when it has been debated up, down, backwards, forwards and every-which-way possible and still stands up does it get the honour of being called a consensus.

Even then peer review is not finished. Both quantum theory and general relativity have stood for nearly 100 years but it is known that the two theories are incompatible. In other words, we know that at least one of them is either incomplete or just plain wrong. For the last 100 years, peer review has been trying to find out why.

Peer review is much more that Higgs has acknowledged it to be and although it does have it's problems, it is still by far the best process we have. It takes time and had work to get to the right answer, lots of it, that is a point that is often overlooked.



Now the linked article is an opinion piece, nothing more. Noel Sheppard's (the blog author) use of emphasis to selectively press home his own bias is the mark of shoddy, dishonest journalism.

Forget the hyped up blog article and read the article it (mis)quotes, you'll get much more value out of it.

[speedy 0]

Quote

x has been wrong in the past and so they must could be wrong now "

With that little correction I would agree with the statement. Although the alarmists would not. They could never be wrong. It might smell funny, but all Dr Higgs seems to saying is that maybe the public have a misconception about what "peer reviewed" means.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[philh 0]

Id say if the public elevates peer reviwed articles above not peer reviewed articles in their likelihood of being true: theyd be right.