|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.238.54.18
In Reply to: Re: Science and Speculation posted by TomLarson on March 26, 2007 at 12:40:41:
...goes back a long way.The only common exception I can think of is some applied research done in industry. But even in industrial science, it's very common to publish in peer-reviewed journals.
It certainly is a--and, I would suggest, probably the--primary distinction.
Follow Ups:
Galileo was peer reviewed by...the Inquisition? Newton peer reviewed by.... Aristotle peer reviewed....Copernicus.....??? maybe everyday science of the last couple hundred years.. but to call peer review the primary distinction is unbelievable...the results, the content of the "work" (science, speculation) is what has to count most.
Tom,I'll have to concede something here, but I'm not sure it's your point exactly. Fact is, peer review isn't even as old as you say it is. It has only been universal (or nearly so) in the sciences for maybe 60 years, since around WW II. Einstein's famous 1905 papers were not peer reviewed in the modern sense. (The editor evaluated them, but no one else did.)
Nevertheless, over the last half century, peer review has indeed become the hallmark of scientific rigor. As I indicated in my original post, almost every practicing scientist is likely to dismiss any bit of science unless--or until--it has been peer reviewed. There are exceptions--scientists trust the work of other scientists and so may accept a conclusion tentatively before a peer-reviewed article is published--but eventually the article will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, or dismissed. These days, peer-review is a near-universal arbiter of scientific rigor. Even today however, there's disagreement over how important and effective it is. The process really isn't that well understood, in cognitive terms.
Still, I don't accept your larger point. The historical examples you gave are from a time before formal peer review was widespread--but that fact doesn't negate your point. What does, I think, is that for every Galileo many thousands of snake-oil salesmen have stood on street corners selling ointments made from a piece of the one true cross, or the Virgin's spit, or whatever, all claiming some breakthrough that helps line their pockets. You cite the rare, historic exceptions, and I concede those. But unless you place Kait's Clever Little Clock and the Belt's foils or whatever in the category of Galileo's insights--brilliant scientific advances unfairly disparaged by their contemporaries, which history will stand in awe of a hundred years and more from now--your point, however true narrowly (or even broadly) just doesn't apply to the present case. Their products are neither great scientific advances disparaged by narrow-minded scientists nor--as the other common argument goes--tentative, phenomenological advances that will someday be confirmed by (presumably, peer-reviewed) science. They are more akin to medieval "remedies" made from Virgin piss, IMO (though, as I made clear in a different post, I'm suggesting no ethical equivalence, only a logial and tactical one). I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it.
And what about other "scientific" theories that existed before an organized peer review. Like Phlogisten theory? For every one that you know of, because they proved more or less right, there were countless others that were utter rubbish (like using mercury to treat syphillis or leaching), even though they perhaps seemed reasonable at the time.Peer review serves a very valuable purpose to keep fantastic claims in check. Without it science progresses actually at a much slower pace because it becomes much more difficult to sort out competing claims. If the US patent office still had to assess each and every claim of a perpetual motion machine they would probably never patent anything else. Now they simply refuse to see any claims of perpetual motion because it is frankly not possible.
Peer review does not prevent all bogus research from getting through but it definitely limits the flood to a trickle. Guys like Einstein and Feynman still had to produce convincing arguments (mathematical that is) for their work in order to have it accepted and strove to gain the acceptance of their peers because an idea needs widespread acceptance to survive. The fact that you don't understand this says that you don't understand what the process is all about and why it is vital.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: