Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
27 online now:
Coragyps, jar, JonF, PaulK (4 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,364 Year: 1,112/23,288 Month: 1,112/1,851 Week: 236/320 Day: 8/87 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Refereed (peer reviewed) Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 16 of 24 (452883)
01-31-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
01-31-2008 3:31 PM


Re: did you read the article?
I very much doubt that Churchill meant a "pure democracy".

And surely Tipler's proposals would tend to make it more like a "social clique" at the level of publication. If you object to that, then why support Tipler ?

It also seems that he wants research funding to be made much more subject to political control. I can't see that as a good idea. It seems that that would make it easier for special interests to suppress research they don't like or to support research they do like - regardless of scientific merit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 3:31 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 5:35 PM PaulK has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3282 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 17 of 24 (452890)
01-31-2008 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
01-31-2008 5:21 PM


Re: did you read the article?
Explain how Tipler's ideas increase the social clique aspect. Having more qualified people review more controversial ideas opens more prospects for new ideas rather than depending on reviewers trained to never think outside the box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2008 5:21 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2008 5:42 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3282 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 18 of 24 (452892)
01-31-2008 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nator
01-31-2008 5:21 PM


wrong
First off, it is impossible to measure the degree it is having a negative effect. If my car has a problem and will still drive 45, that doesn't mean just because we can move forward, everything is OK.

How much faster could we go? How many orthodox paradigms are keeping good science out?

He gives specific examples worth noting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 01-31-2008 5:21 PM nator has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 19 of 24 (452894)
01-31-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
01-31-2008 5:35 PM


Re: did you read the article?
His proposal allows a relatively few people to dictate that a paper will be published. That's why it will make it more of a social clique.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 5:35 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 6:31 PM PaulK has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3282 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 24 (452907)
01-31-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
01-31-2008 5:42 PM


Re: did you read the article?
Not really. He still allows for the old system but makes room for another tier to consider papers that more greatly challenge existing paradigms. You can call that cliquey (not a real word I suppose), but it's no more so than the existing system, and it has a signficant advantage of putting papers before people with more faculty for certain papers and subjects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2008 5:42 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2008 6:37 PM randman has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 21 of 24 (452910)
01-31-2008 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
01-31-2008 6:31 PM


Re: did you read the article?
quote:

Not really. He still allows for the old system but makes room for another tier to consider papers that more greatly challenge existing paradigms

And that additional system means that a paper only needs a few supporters to get publication. Just like I said.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 6:31 PM randman has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 553 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 22 of 24 (453301)
02-01-2008 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by randman
01-31-2008 5:09 PM


Re: nice civil response
You know, Tipler is tenured, so Tulane can't fire him for spouting off his crazy shit. I can assure you that if he was a new PhD looking to get hired to a tenure track position and he was flogging the crap he is today, he would never be hired.

That's why Tipler should really STFU about how the peer-review system and science is so terribly flawed, since the tenure system is set up to keep institutions of higher education from being able to fire professors for having "out there" ideas.

The same happened with UFO abduction believer John Mack at Harvard.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 5:09 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 12:18 AM nator has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3282 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 23 of 24 (453368)
02-02-2008 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
02-01-2008 7:33 PM


Re: nice civil response
I can assure you that if he was a new PhD looking to get hired to a tenure track position and he was flogging the crap he is today, he would never be hired.

You so sure about that? I suggest you read the article in the OP because he was nearly denied tenure over anti-religious bigotry and some other ways he challenged scientific orthodoxy, according to him at least, and I think there is good reason to believe he is telling the truth.

Tulane, to their credit, didn't adopt your attitude and granted him tenure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 02-01-2008 7:33 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 02-02-2008 7:43 AM randman has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 553 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 24 (453425)
02-02-2008 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by randman
02-02-2008 12:18 AM


Re: nice civil response
quote:
You so sure about that?

Pretty sure, yes.

Just like Harvard would never have hired John Mack if he had been spouting his crap about alien abductions when he was looking to get hired as a professor.

Tell me, should Holocaust deniers be treated the same way in the academic field of History as you think IDers should be treated in Biology?

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 12:18 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020