Well, you have to make sure that people are trying to refute your
hypothesis, instead of whatever they may have came up with.
The need to rely on peer's review is not science weakest link. But the
need to rely on peer's BIASED review is.
[]'s
Woody
> Point taken, horned one.
>
> You're a gentleman and a scholar.
>
> Walter
> <gotta run, I need to go calculate my ethanol intake curve so I'm not passed out when Sebby's IRC b'day party happens at 10pm.>
>
> Ciao
>
> rhinoceros wrote:
>
> > [rhinoceros]
> > The need to rely on peer review is the weak link of science today. Science is a creative process and it is not neutral.
> >
> > [Walter]
> > Whoa, there, Rhino.
> >
> > Credentialed peer review is not a weak link. It is science's very foundation.
> >
> > [rhinoceros]
> > Of course it is. But it is not failsafe. I remember that experiment by Michael Mahoney, who tried to test the criteria by which the reviewers judged and found out that they were biased according to their own line of work.
> >
> > See, I didn't even say a word about money or sponsors here.
> >
> > ----
> > This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS.
> > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25695>
>
> --
>
> Walter Watts
> Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
>
> "No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!"
>
>
-- Rafael Anschau <anschau.ez@terra.com.br>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:15 MDT