Re: Why do you believe what you believe?

On 2009-09-30, Burkhard <b.schafer@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 30, 8:02 am, Pulse <feralpu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

What makes specific secular texts more reliable than other contradictory
texts? Here I'm mostly interested in understanding why many consider
peer review journals so valuable as well as which (if any) other texts
can be considered of equal merit.

OK, here my part 2:

<snip good stuff>

.....and very good it is, but I think there's a bit too much bias here towards
empirical papers. Lamport's logical clocks paper does fit this mold at all.
I just taught Culler's LogP paper last week, and at this distance it's obvious
that the empirical results were just window dressing to make the model look
good.

I think you've done a great job of capturing the easier (and smaller) aspect
of the problem: reproducibility. Good results are (at least in theory)
reproducible, and we have many proxies to choose from because reproducing
experiments is expensive (in term of cost, time and career advancement).

The much more interesting problem (to me at least) is how does one judge
quality on issues where honest, knowledgeable people disagree? For
example:

1. Do we need a model to explain this (is the problem important)?
2. Does the proposed model allow us to answer interesting questions?
3. When is it worthwhile to publish a more complex model that makes
slightly better predictions?
4. When is it worthwhile to publish a model that makes better predictions
for a smaller set of parameters?

The only answers I've come across have been from reading lots of papers,
reading reviews of my papers, and reviewing other people's papers under the
guidance of my adviser. To a degree that might upset non-scientists here,
I think it is mostly a matter of taste. I need to know the tastes of the
community for whom I am writing, as my reviews will help influence that
taste.

In short, it's messy.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why do you believe what you believe?
    ... peer review journals so valuable as well as which other texts ... The only answers I've come across have been from reading lots of papers, ... reading reviews of my papers, and reviewing other people's papers under the ... downgraded journals, and actually taken some of my comments on board. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Watching Barrett-Jackson
    ... I think he actually reviewed 12 texts. ... The reviews and commentary on ... his book normally state a "left-wing perspective". ...
    (rec.motorcycles.harley)
  • Re: Would Einstein recognize his own theory today?
    ... learn General Relativity." ... was "a few essays on aether theory c. 1900, a few papers in Annalen ... Then, like, 2 more reviews after 1905, then it was all "nobody but me" ... I shaved off my moustache and hair in the early 1990's because it ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Whats the best camera for very low light shots?
    ... Rich - just a tiny tadge pricey don't you think?! ... Thanks for all the reviews and papers, ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: JSH: The "Published" paper he dosent what you to know about.
    ... Hey sci.math'ers why don't you start ripping on Mathematical Reviews ... Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics like a real journal ... Just read a few of the papers that appeared there. ... included SWJPAM in its list of reviewed journals is not an implied ...
    (sci.math)
Loading