Re: Movie Review: 300



tussock <scrub@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:45f7b615$1@xxxxxxxxxxxx:

David Alex Lamb wrote:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Shawn Roske wrote:
all hail the holy peer review, never mind the corporate
grants.

You object to the scientific method? Perhaps you should go
hunt dinner with a sharp stick.

I don't see anything with which to replace peer review, but it
has its problems, like the occasional cadre of backstabbers who
reject papers from the competition. Plus, it's fair to wonder
how much researchers (and therefore reviewers) are influenced
by their funders' outlook.

Largely speaking, they aren't. The current funding model
overly
promotes consensus and can't handle high risk or unknown goals
well,

Or results well outside of expectation - stuf that really does
change what we know at a fundamental level. (Which, fortunately,
doesn't happen all that often.)

but it doesn't seem to produce anything objectively false
until the PR guys get their hands on it.

Unless, of course, you are researching climate change, where you
_will_ lose your funding if you even suggest that we need to do
more research on global warming.

The news stories that purport to educate the masses on
scientific
matters are a whole 'nother story, as are the politicians and
such who back their social models with fabulously twisted
science.

Was it Joey Skaggs who did the fake physics paper on how our
political beliefs cause quantum physics laws to change, and got it
published in a peer reviewed journal?

--
"What is the first law?"
"To Protect."
"And the second?"
"Ourselves."

Terry Austin
.