tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post3223323873202065648..comments2023-10-23T11:13:35.712-04:00Comments on Games with Words: Priest, Altars and Peer ReviewEdwardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04295927435118827266noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-14168513466857808622010-12-09T11:05:48.630-05:002010-12-09T11:05:48.630-05:00Ditto the comment about problems with commenting o...Ditto the comment about problems with commenting on Wired.Rosie Redfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06807912674127645263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-85322485007698170552010-12-09T00:04:51.525-05:002010-12-09T00:04:51.525-05:00@Dobbs Dude, I already linked to your post. Incide...@Dobbs Dude, I already linked to your post. Incidentally, there's something really wrong with Wired's commenting system; whenever I try to log in it just sits there. So I don't usually comment.<br /><br />I'm not sure we disagree about how to characterize your argument. NASA was refusing to address criticism that came from outside peer-reviewed channels. That comes across as absurd in this case because this was a peer reviewing their work, and any serious scientist should listen carefully to serious criticism.<br /><br />But I think we can distinguish between what scientists think about in the privacy of their own labs and what they want to be responsible for in a public forum. I don't think anybody wants a rule where every scientist must publicly address every comment that anyone makes, no matter how wacko. <br />(OK there are people who *do* want that rule, but they're wackos and I refuse to address their desires.)<br /><br />So I think if we see the NASA spokesperson as acting in a public forum and abiding by established rules for public fora (fori?), the position seems more reasonable. Let's face it, any method we choose to filter comments is going to be imperfect.<br /><br />But if NASA's policy is not to ever even *think* about ideas that they didn't read in Science or Nature ... that's a downright terrible policy and they deserve all the scorn that can be heaped their way. I would like to believe NASA scientists aren't that stupid.GamesWithWordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15107067137612954306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-54852202353763290932010-12-08T21:46:16.938-05:002010-12-08T21:46:16.938-05:00Sorry to be obtuse. My point is that science can b...Sorry to be obtuse. My point is that science can be discussed, argued, promoted, etc in any and all venues and that is a good thing. I have never been happy with the 'peer reviewed' argument, because it is an argument from authority and when one creationism (or other pseudoscience) paper comes out in a 'peer reviewed' journal we are screwed.<br /><br />I agree that it is tiring having to have the same arguments over and over again, but that does not mean we should take shortcuts to avoid the arguments. We should recruit new arguers to our side if we are tired.<br /><br />Regardless, I find it disingenuous for those using non-peer reviewed venues to promote their peer reviewed work to then shut the door on non-peer reviewed venues to criticize their peer-reviewed work. We are talking about Larry Moran (author of a popular biochemistry text book), Rosemary Redfield (Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology in bacteria), Carl Zimmer (wrote a book or two about something or other), among others.<br /><br />Dr. Wolf-Simon's argument that all discussion relating to her work must occur via peer reviewed publications is bullshit at best (her quote "Any discourse will have to be peer-reviewed in the same manner as our paper was, and go through a vetting process so that all discussion is properly moderated"). Does she really expect a letter to the editor of Science to be sent out for formal review? or does she feel that once an article is published it is sacrosanct unless a different contradictory paper is published? By her logic cold fusion really occurred and we should still be intrigued by those studies from the late-80s.<br /><br />Basically I agree with what David Dobbs said above.The Loraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361004494346338824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-25992247167348931712010-12-08T16:27:29.970-05:002010-12-08T16:27:29.970-05:00@Lorax: I'm not sure I follow your argument. N...@Lorax: I'm not sure I follow your argument. NASA's claim is merely that peer-reviewed papers and newsworthy, that which is not peer-reviewed is not. There's no contradiction here; the arsenic study was published in a peer-reviewed journal.<br /><br />Similarly, the First Amendment gives you the right to speak, but not the right to be listened to. So again, the NASA position seems entirely consistent: they are not going to respond to something that comes from a non-peer-reviewed source.GamesWithWordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15107067137612954306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-56130238202960976042010-12-08T13:59:43.867-05:002010-12-08T13:59:43.867-05:00Open the floodgates? The first amendment already d...Open the floodgates? The first amendment already did that and I think the blogosphere is much more readily available to the general (and expert) public than a buried letter to the editor published 2 months after the original publication. <br /><br />The foolishness of the NASA spokesperson is that NASA announced with great fanfare their paper in press conference and press release neither of which are peer reviewed venues. They want it both ways, we can use nontraditional media and venues to announce the awesomeness of our work, but you cannot.<br /><br />Peer review is great, but flawed, like all human activities. Like Oprah, like blogs (except mine of course which completely righteous)The Loraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361004494346338824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-73580783326448236282010-12-08T12:56:18.769-05:002010-12-08T12:56:18.769-05:00The word "blog" is valueless beyond iden...The word "blog" is valueless beyond identifying the type of web domicile an individual has chosen to call home. A blanket dismissal of "blogs" is as arbitrary as deciding one day to ignore people who live in houses with flat roofs.Edwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04295927435118827266noreply@blogger.com