DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Can't. I don't agree there's a problem in the first place.Sure, Great Idea...
Would you help me think it through a bit?
And you've nuked all your credibility.
Can't. I don't agree there's a problem in the first place.Sure, Great Idea...
Would you help me think it through a bit?
You want to avoid that?...and without all Pride and Ego
Sure, Great Idea...
Would you help me think it through a bit?
Well, perhaps somehow (and I do not know how) we would have to come up with a system that is without...
All Arrogance
All Ignorance
All Philosophical Bias
All Financial Rewards
All Financial Penalty
All Career Promotions
All Career Demotions
All Social Status Benefits
All Social Status Penalty
All Political Motivations...
...and without all Pride and Ego
Oh, and all Scientists would have to love, respect, financially support, and actively work for the success of all of their Peers, whether or not they agree with them.
I don’t think this is possible, but that might be a place to start.
Even if a better system is not yet possible, in the meantime, I don’t think we should present the Peer Review System as anything that is either more or less than it actually is in reality, whatever that is at any given time.
Perhaps it should be presented as it truly is...
as a partially flawed and sometimes problematic system but as the best system we are currently capable of.
Someone else here would certainly be more capable than I am of thinking up a better system than the one we currently have.
Give it a go if you want to.
Well, that would rule out the Church.
And, the point of doing that is what exactly?
You may be somewhat confused as to how the system works, it's not perfect, but it's the best way to go about it. When someone publishes their findings, they indeed want other scientists to poke holes in it, find and weed out the flaws, if any and put the findings to experimentation to see if it works. What do you find wrong with that?
Point well made...I think this has happened historically on both sides, within Science, with both Theism proponents and Atheism proponents.
Yes, don't inoculate kids and no blood transfusions, it's against my belief, and you do want us all to be happy in our new understanding groups.It could be more like a cooperative board game, where everyone works together on the same team, and where they want the best for each other, because the only way they know they can win the game is if they all work together. Because a team is normally stronger than any one individual.
Just my crazy thoughts...
Perhaps instead of each individual trying to win the glory, and money for themselves, as in a war game...
It could be more like a cooperative board game, where everyone works together on the same team, and where they want the best for each other, because the only way they know they can win the game is if they all work together. Because a team is normally stronger than any one individual.
In my opinion, Empirical Science normally works very well, mainly because the data can be tested and repeated. Empirical Science is Great!!!
But it also seems to me, that there can be problems in the more Theoretical Sciences, when/if the approach involves making guesses about the past and even making up stories about what happened in history.
Data can be incomplete, conflicting, etc. and no one was probably even alive then. And also historical events usually cannot be tested or repeated in the same way Empirical Science can be.
What actually happened in reality can also be substantially or completely different than any mathematical model yet proposed. Just because you may have a mathematical model for a thing does not mean that thing ever actually happened. Math is great, but it is not always equivalent to reality.
If theories are ever created in order to support one’s own personal philosophical view or suppress the philosophical view of someone else, I would say that is unethical and is likely unscientific.
I think this has happened historically on both sides, within Science, with both Theism proponents and Atheism proponents.
I agree with you, but as a hard atheist myself, I could support a concerted effort in matters of "common good", rather than selecting matters of contention to begin a conversation.Yes, don't inoculate kids and no blood transfusions, it's against my belief, and you do want us all to be happy in our new understanding groups.
I would suggest that rather than find fault with the other side, the players of each side search their own souls and play by the rules of fair-play.If it were more like a "cooperative board game" as you suggest, then these types of hoaxes or unethical behavior would not get exposed and we would never be able to tell good science from bad. That's why the current system works well.
At present there are people of faith doing good scientific research, they are satisfied with and have no trouble with the current peer review system. Have you got any reason the present peer system should change? Perhaps you sholud ask setiAlpha6 why he thinks it should change.I could support a concerted effort in matters of "common good", rather than selecting matters of contention to begin a conversation.
That's what we have now. No one scientist is going to "solve" fusion, or climate change. But by building on the work of others they can (and do) make real progress.It could be more like a cooperative board game, where everyone works together on the same team, and where they want the best for each other, because the only way they know they can win the game is if they all work together. Because a team is normally stronger than any one individual.
With very few exceptions (say, studies of the universe's origin before Planck time) theoretical sciences are backed up quite well by empirical experimentation, testing and measurement.In my opinion, Empirical Science normally works very well, mainly because the data can be tested and repeated. Empirical Science is Great!!!
But it also seems to me, that there can be problems in the more Theoretical Sciences, when/if the approach involves making guesses about the past and even making up stories about what happened in history.
Of course they can be. We've run experiments, for example, on what caused the K-T extinction - and we now know, due to empirical measurements, that it was very likely the Chicxulub impactor which nearly destroyed the Earth and radically changed the climate. That's based on being able to radiologically date geologic strata (empirical measurements) and being able to compare the composition of those layers to the composition of the asteroids we have looked at (again, empirical measurements.)Data can be incomplete, conflicting, etc. and no one was probably even alive then. And also historical events usually cannot be tested or repeated in the same way Empirical Science can be.
Agreed. But if you have a consistent model - AND you have a dozen empirical measurements that support that model - then it probably happened that way.What actually happened in reality can also be substantially or completely different than any mathematical model yet proposed. Just because you may have a mathematical model for a thing does not mean that thing ever actually happened.
No, no, no....I was not intimating that.At present there are people of faith doing good scientific research, they are satisfied with and have no trouble with the current peer review system. Have you got any reason the present peer system should change? Perhaps you sholud ask setiAlpha6 why he thinks it should change.
Educated speculation is part and parcel of science and the scientific method. It was once hypothesised that other stars should have planets orbiting them, just as our Sun does. But we had no way of knowing with any "empirical evidence" to support that idea....until around a couple of decades ago, and now we have found in excess of 3000 extra solar planets.....But it also seems to me, that there can be problems in the more Theoretical Sciences, when/if the approach involves making guesses about the past and even making up stories about what happened in history.
Nothing is perfect, including the scientific method, but it is the overwhelmingly best system we have. And of course while we can observe and judge the many attempts to deride science, due to personal philosophical and religious views, the incidents of scientists participating in such fraud is much rarer.If theories are ever created in order to support one’s own personal philosophical view or suppress the philosophical view of someone else, I would say that is unethical and is likely unscientific.
I think this has happened historically on both sides, within Science, with both Theism proponents and Atheism proponents.
You may have noticed science does not set out to prove there are no gods. So, where does the '' bad will'' come from? So, again, why does SetiAlpha6 want to change the peer review process?No, no, no....I was not intimating that.
This was offered as a general humane attitude of cooperation rather than hostile opposition.
Theism is not science, it has no standing as a body of scientific inquiry.
As I said, I am a hard atheist, but I always try to advocate for peace and good will toward all people.
I haven't a clue, nor do I have "bad will" to anyone. Do you know where all this comes from?You may have noticed science does not set out to prove there are no gods. So, where does the '' bad will'' come from? So, again, why does SetiAlpha6 want to change the peer review process?
Wonder why you felt the need to mention '' hostile opposition'' and ''goodwill'' in your earlier post #122.Do you know where all this comes from?
This was offered as a general humane attitude of cooperation rather than hostile opposition.
I think goodwill is taken to be already included in the current peer review process.but I always try to advocate for peace and good will toward all people.
Is there anything specifically wrong with that general observation?Wonder why you felt the need to mention '' hostile opposition'' and ''goodwill'' in your earlier post #122.
We are in agreement then? Good....I think goodwill is taken to be already included in the current peer review process.
You asked in your post #125 in referring to ''bad will'' ''Do you know where all this comes from?'', I (in my post #126) pointed you to your own earlier words '' hostile opposition''.Is there anything specifically wrong with that general observation?
Ideally, not that much.To what extent does the Pier Review process result in Pier Pressure to conform to Majority Opinion?