Re: Movie Review: 300
- From: No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:03:12 -0000
tussock <scrub@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
David Alex Lamb wrote:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Shawn Roske wrote:
all hail the holy peer review, never mind the corporateYou 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
promotes consensus and can't handle high risk or unknown goals
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 onWas it Joey Skaggs who did the fake physics paper on how our
matters are a whole 'nother story, as are the politicians and
such who back their social models with fabulously twisted
political beliefs cause quantum physics laws to change, and got it
published in a peer reviewed journal?
"What is the first law?"
"And the second?"