In Reply to: Re: Hi Alex, thanks for the very level-headed response posted by Dave Kingsland on August 21, 2004 at 09:46:55:
Dave,I think you vastly overestimate the critical process involved in scientific and technical papers (I won't even mention journalists). Some fantastic misunterpretations have been published over the centuries, without anyone daring to verify or even question the results. I remember seing one book about this, but I can't find the title at the moment, but examples of scientific mistakes abound*.
The discussion that followed Alex's publication on this board is a very healthy one in my opinion, including your careful reading and subsequent discussions. Since he has the ability to correct, amend, or complement his article, the process is actually productive, including for readers who are not specialists, like me.
And, again, I think a lot of the problems raised could be prevented by some common methodology and procedures. This would also allow comparisons between different people and publications.
Cheers
Eric
* I do have one example in mind, though. One of the leading sociology books, Durkheim's Suicide, contained a major misunterpretation of some statistical data. That book was reviewed, published, and studied by thousands (if not tens of thousands) of students, teachers, researchers, and no one had noticed this mistake for about a century, until one guy actually double checked the tables in the book.
BTW, the book is still printed with the same mistake, and there's not even a mention of the article where this was discovered :)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- A few words - Eric LeRouge 10:41:25 08/21/04 (2)
- Re: A few words - Dave Kingsland 05:24:58 08/22/04 (1)
- Re: A few words - Alex Striganov 10:44:28 08/22/04 (0)