No, you're not entitled to your opinion

[cybercoma]

So all truths being equal, you would hold that the theory of an invisible flying spaghetti monster holding people to the earth with his noodly appendages is just as true as the theory of gravity?

Who's to say one is better than the other.

Edited October 8, 2012 by cybercoma

[dre]

Who decides what work is serious? There is no objective measure for that adjective. These kinds of criticisms are often used as hand waving excuses to justify excluding views that not politically convenient.

Yes there is an objective measure. Either someone has done some real work to arrive at their conclusions, and documented their work for others to repeat, and submitted it for peer review... or they havent.

[TimG]

So all truths being equal, you would hold that the theory of an invisible flying spaghetti monster holding people to the earth with his noodly appendages is just as true as the theory of gravity?

I made it clear that I think there are many views which are nonsense. What I am rejecting is the premise that self appointed gatekeepers should be the ones to decide which views are nonsense.

[cybercoma]

I made it clear that I think there are many views which are nonsense. What I am rejecting is the premise that self appointed gatekeepers should be the ones to decide which views are nonsense.

Why are they nonsense? What standard are you using to determine that they're nonsense?

[cybercoma]

Yes there is an objective measure. Either someone has done some real work to arrive at their conclusions, and documented their work for others to repeat, and submitted it for peer review... or they havent.

TimG doesn't seem to understand the testable and repeatable part about research. He completely ignores the concepts of reliability and validity, which are constantly challenged in academic circles. He doesn't understand why something is credible because he doesn't understand the nature of research.

[TimG]

Yes there is an objective measure. Either someone has done some real work to arrive at their conclusions, and documented their work for others to repeat, and submitted it for peer review... or they havent.

Science that is posted on a blog for people to review complete with computer code that allows readers to replicate the claims is as valid as anything in a peer reviewed journal. In fact, it is often more valid because of the public review process. The idea that only peer reviewed journals are entitled to publish science is more of pathetic attempts at gate keeping designed to keep viewpoints that the establishment does not like out of the discussion. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

Why are they nonsense? What standard are you using to determine that they're nonsense?

Whatever I want. The difference is I am not saying there should be gatekeepers that decide what other people are allowed to hear. I say let it all get out there and people will have to figure it out for themselves.

[cybercoma]

Whatever I want. The difference is I am not saying there should be gatekeepers that decide what other people are allowed to hear. I say let it all get out there and people will have to figure it out for themselves.

Nobody's being censored, Tim. You can stop with that tired old line any day now.

[dre]

Science that is posted on a blog for people to review complete with computer code that allows readers to replicate the claims is as valid as anything in a peer reviewed journal.

I have no problem with publishing research this way provided its submitted for peer review as well.

[cybercoma]

Science that is posted on a blog for people to review complete with computer code that allows readers to replicate the claims is as valid as anything in a peer reviewed journal. In fact, it is often more valid because of the public review process. The idea that only peer reviewed journals are entitled to publish science is more of pathetic attempts at gate keeping designed to keep viewpoints that the establishment does not like out of the discussion.

Oh great idea. Who wants experts in the field reviewing scientific work when you can have the public doing it?

Maybe the top medical journals should consider this approach. Who needs the experts when you've got the internet.

[TimG]

Oh great idea. Who wants experts in the field reviewing scientific work when you can have the public doing it?

The people reviewing the work posted on blogs are often experts. Why don't you try reading them instead of assuming.

[TimG]

I have no problem with publishing research this way provided its submitted for peer review as well.

Why? What purpose does it serve other than giving the establishment an excuse to keep politically undesirable science out of the journals.

[cybercoma]

The people reviewing the work posted on blogs are often experts. Why don't you try reading them instead of assuming.

Then they should have no problem getting their work published in academic journals. Of course, when you have geologists reviewing the work of climatologists, that's not exactly the same thing. It's like having a psychologist reviewing the work of a proctologist, all you end up with is your head up your ass.

[TimG]

Nobody's being censored, Tim. You can stop with that tired old line any day now.

Then what is the point of the op? It wants "standards" to prevent "false balance". Dress it up if you like but it the idea is they want to control the message and that means gatekeepers deciding what the message should be. That means censorship in one way or another.

[cybercoma]

Then what is the point of the op?

Here. I'll make some highlights to help you understand it better.

If “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.

But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.

Hope that helps.

[TimG]

Then they should have no problem getting their work published in academic journals.

I don't know if you are pretending to ignorant or if you really believe this.

The fact is the game works like this:

Say skeptics have to publish in peer reviewed journals;

Step 1) Block skeptics from some journals because of editorial bias.

Step 2) If Skeptics publish in a journal so blacklist that journal and claim it is not reputable and it should be ignored.

Step 3) If skeptics publish in a related journal (stats physics, etc) so claim it is nor a "climate" journal so it should be ignored.

The publish in "peer reviewed" journals meme is clearly a scam designed to control the message.

If it was as simple as you say then options 2) and 3) should be acceptable.

But in the climate debate alarmists constantly move the goal posts.

And 2) and 3) are not options.

Skeptics don't often publish because it is waste of time because excuses 2) and 3) are rolled out when they do. After all. A scientific idea is true no matter where it is published.

People that refuse to acknowledge that are the problem.

Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

If you spent half as much energy examining the validity of the sceptics claims, as you do trying (and failing miserably) to indict the entire academic establishment, you would know just how ridiculous you sound.

[dre]

Why? What purpose does it serve other than giving the establishment an excuse to keep politically undesirable science out of the journals.

Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

It allows qualified peers in your industry to help you by confirming your methodology, or catching mistakes, omissions etc. etc. It also adds credibility to your paper and makes it more likely that your peers will use your work, and build on it. Pretty important stuff, which I imagine is why your buddy Watts submits his papers instead of just posting them on HIS blog.

Anybody can chuck whatever they want on a blog, but not many people are going to recognize it as a valid scientific work unless you go through the peer review process.

Edited October 8, 2012 by dre

[cybercoma]

That doesn't mean that something that's on a blog is not valid or credible, but it hasn't been reviewed by "qualified individuals in a relevant field." This means that blog posts, on the whole, have a far greater proportion of garbage on them than academic journals. I mean, seriously, who in their right mind argues for the credibility of blogs over academic journals? It's ludicrous.

Edited October 8, 2012 by cybercoma

[dre]

The publish in "peer reviewed" journals meme is clearly a scam designed to control the message.

No its a system of self regulation and sharing work that has evolved over the last few centuries. Its not perfect by any means, but its not a scam either, and you have not proposed anything better.

And all your whining is a waste of time, because whether you like it or not, this IS the system we have.

[TimG]

That doesn't mean that something that's on a blog is not valid or credible, but it hasn't been reviewed by "qualified individuals in a relevant field."

More "cult of the expert" crap. Good science does require a certain base level of knowledge but once you have that base anyone can become an expert in field of their choosing. They don't need to be a professional academic.

In any case, the blogs that I am interested in have plenty of qualified individuals in a relevant field reviewing the stuff.

I mean, seriously, who in their right mind argues for the credibility of blogs over academic journals? It's ludicrous.

I never said blogs should trump academic journals. I am only saying is they can be a legitimate source of information and reject your suggestion that they should be automatically excluded because they are blogs. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

And all your whining is a waste of time, because whether you like it or not, this IS the system we have.

Well that is my entire point. I think the system we have is biased and unreliable therefore we cannot depend on it as the sole source information used in a public debate. Other sources of information should be included. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

I mean, seriously, who in their right mind argues for the credibility of blogs over academic journals? It's ludicrous.

Tim has contructed a whole alternate reality around a persecution complex, complete with heros, and thousands of villains conspiring to destroy the global economy. The peer review process is basically collateral damage because its a machination of the massive evil scientist conspiracy.

[dre]

Well that is my entire point. I think the system we have is biased and unreliable therefore we cannot depend on it as the sole source information used in a public debate. Other sources of information should be included.

They are. Anybody can post anything on a blog or screem it from the rooftops, and tell anyone that will listen. The reality is that most people are going to place more weight on properly reviewed and published research, and nothing you can say will change that.

Edited October 8, 2012 by dre

[cybercoma]

Another point that needs to be made. Anyone can publish in a peer reviewed journal. You don't even need a degree. You just have to know what you're talking about. The reviewers that get your manuscript have absolutely no idea who you are or what qualifications you have. They simply look at your arguments and methods and evaluate them.

Edited October 8, 2012 by cybercoma