Seriously thoughtful In science we Trust.

[TGS]

Not one to want to give succor to the theists is another place, but here is the concluding paragraph from an article I read recently, (Smith, Richard: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals: J R Soc Med. 2006 April; 99(4): 178–182.)

So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Having been involved in the peer review process, both as an author and as a reviewer, in my field at least (astronomy) I was certainly not aware of any "lobbying" to conform to particular viewpoints.

Do you have any specific examples in mind, beppe?

The list is quite long Harry, it is many years that I am operative and changed field a number of times. I am still active and known.

"lobbying" is certainly not to conform to particular viewpoints, except those related to personal vanity, that is one of the worst plague of our profession.

Rather to favor friends of friends in exchange of past and future favors.

As you did so well with the Tacitus example in that other thread, it will not escape to your attention the complex system of evaluation of citation and impact factors, to give credibility to the publications and the efforts in that direction.

Astronomy eh. Many years back I almost switched to astrophysics ...
So you know that the main flaw of Maxwell equations is that they imply stationarity. Everybody knows it and nobody bothers.

Ad astra per aspra

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

Not one to want to give succor to the theists is another place, but here is the concluding paragraph from an article I read recently, (Smith, Richard: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals: J R Soc Med. 2006 April; 99(4): 178–182.)

Link to the full article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

and a blog entry from Richard Smith:

http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2010/03/22/...nals%E2%80%9D/

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by beppe

The list is quite long Harry, it is many years that I am operative and changed field a number of times. I am still active and known.

"lobbying" is certainly not to conform to particular viewpoints, except those related to personal vanity, that is one of the worst plague of our profession.

Rather to favor friends of friends in exchange of past and future favors.

As you did so well with the Tacitus example in that other thread, it will not escape to your attention the complex system of evaluation of citation and impact factors, to give credibility to the publications and the efforts in that direction.

Astronomy eh. Many years back I almost switched to astrophysics ...
So you know that the main flaw of Maxwell equations is that they imply stationarity. Everybody knows it and nobody bothers.

Ad astra per aspra

Ummm, this is just double-talk. If the list is so long, then it should be simple to provide a few of them.

[beppe]

Kenny, i realize that i made a blunder in my post. Not for the content but for the form. Instead of making my point in an open form. and explaining it in detail, i just dropped hints, and put the key to it in the last reference.

Why? It is also a professional deformation and the high esteem in which I hold you that brings me to just hint at things, and avoid being graphical.

I should have said clearly that the problem is not the scientists or the science but the information processes around them. The reference to the Dean is unfortunate as it refers to Jonathan Swift, but could be interpreted at the light of recent discussions about religion.

So accept my apologies.

[kennyc]

This topic is quite a significant issue (for some of reasons expressed above). It was also addressed in a different sort of way in
The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin where in part he more or less compares the scientific research community and peer publication process to a kind of "group-think" process that preserves the status quo and prevents new idea and approaches from being seriously considered.

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physic...7316986&sr=8-8

[beppe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Ummm, this is just double-talk. If the list is so long, then it should be simple to provide a few of them.

good, you do not believe me, fine. who cares ...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by beppe

Kenny, i realize that i made a blunder in my post. Not for the content but for the form. Instead of making my point in an open form. and explaining it in detail, i just dropped hints, and put the key to it in the last reference.

Why? It is also a professional deformation and the high esteem in which I hold you that brings me to just hint at things, and avoid being graphical.

I should have said clearly that the problem is not the scientists or the science but the information processes around them. The reference to the Dean is unfortunate as it refers to Jonathan Swift, but could be interpreted at the light of recent discussions about religion.

So accept my apologies.

NP. As I said this is a topic worthy of discussion, but let's keep it on target as requested by the "serious" tag. And certainly the scientific (peer reviewed) press as well as the popular press and media are both worthy of discussion but let's be clear about which we speak.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by beppe

good, you do not believe me, fine. who cares ...

I'll be glad to take a look at any actual example you provide.

I've already provided one myself in the previous links.

[beppe]

gd, NP frm ls.

The origin of the Universe is separated from our observations of it by billions of anything you use to measure the distance (rather abstract concept in this case). And by an unknowable sequence of disturbing factors between the "event" and our observing it. So to expect accurate information about that event is *ridiculous* in itself. Doubly ridiculous is evaluating as trustworthy who would give that accurate information. IMHO.

Enormously ridiculous is assuming that the origin of the Universe is among the important issues of society. Maybe for the most honorable society of the origin of the Universe. But economically, sociologically, politically, culturally, the nature of the Origin of the Universe looks at most irrelevant to me (IMHO). Unless somebody wants to use that unfathomable concept to discuss other issues. Fine with me. Than, let's leave Science and scientists and origin of the Universe in peace.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'll be glad to take a look at any actual example you provide.

I've already provided one myself in the previous links.

I am afraid that you do not know what you are talking about, and that you do not have the faintest idea of how the whole thing works. You do not care about privacy, anonymity and what else. I apologized already but you do not let go. Look, man, do as you want.

[TGS]

Did I miss something?

[beppe]

................

[LCF]

Science is a very strange thing. And like everything is run by the people with the big cash and the tomorrows profit in the eyesight. Eventual benefits in the 10+ years future just don't work for them. It's up to devoted scientists to make useful inventions or find major flaws in todays technologies, which we should have known, but we don't.

I'm being slightly affected, because yesterday I visited a seminar dedicated on energy medicine. I must admit, that I didn't really believe some of the said stuff, but I was frankly scared by the data cited about wireless transfer and it's negative effects on humans, especially children. I so very hope the person was just trying to make a fuzz, but unfortunately most of what he said was either very well fabricated, or true.

Back to the point:

Every new invention that doesn't bring money today almost certainly gets lost under a pile of other patents. Example - Gorilla Glass.

New inventions that would cut the money flow from powerful people get "lost". It's harder to do in the Internet age, but it's still the way things are.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you were to come up with a claim that, say, there's fundamental flaw in Maxwell's equations, then yes, I agree that you'd need to have pretty convincing evidence to get it published in a mainstream journal. I don't think, though, that it's a bad thing that such journals tend to steer clear of "fringe" viewpoints.

I suppose it depends on your definition of flawed.

I mentioned a while back on another thread that one of Maxwell's Equations boundary conditions (there are two of them) implies that the speed of light is not a constant. It was a dead letter issue until the 1999 discovery of negative Permeability and Permittivity. Experiments could be done to check it out, but aren't, because everybody knows the Speed of Light in a vacuum is constant.

(The other boundary condition implied that in a negative P and P, a light wave would propagate along one axis while another portion of it would be appear to be travelling in the opposite direction. Experimental proven...)

To say my comment about it was considered "fringe", was to put it mildly.