Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Peer Review and the Scientific Process

<< < (47/47)

IainB:
There is an interesting bit of psychological research that has been done on the attention-distracting effect of things like smartphones, as reported on here: Your iPhone Reduces Your Brainpower, Even If It's Just Sitting There.

Rather than the research itself, or its conclusions, I find this comment honest and very wise - in light of what we now know about the falsifiability of a lot of psychological research: (my emphasis)
...“We can yell our opinions at each other, and people are going to agree or disagree with them, and set up luddites-versus-technolovers debates. But I wanted to get data,” he told me.

It’s worth noting that the type of psychological research Ward conducts—trials on willing, Western undergrads, often participating in studies to fulfill course credit—has suffered a crisis of confidence in recent years. Psychologists have had difficulty replicating some of the most famous experiments in their field, leading some to argue that all psychology experiments should be replicated before they are published. Ward’s study has not yet been replicated. ...

--- End quote ---

Renegade:
@IainB - I suppose I shouldn't find any of that surprising. Hey... let's do a study! And pay people! Surely people willing to do our study for f**k all aren't any different than people that have productive and meaningful lives and that couldn't give a s**t less about us!!!

The idiocy is deafening.

For the most part, science is dead.

IainB:
...For the most part, science is dead.
___________________________________
-Renegade (August 22, 2017, 12:02 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, maybe. Here's a scientist who persists in calling out the weaknesses in peer review. He's about to be fired for blowing the whistle, it being a crime - "uncollegial", or something. Looks like a witch-hunt: Concerned About Prof Peter Ridd - Jennifer Marohasy

Here he is in a recent radio interview. Worth a listen: University Professor censored

He has consistently been saying the same thing for ages: Peer reviews are a poor form of quality control, and bad science may be falling through the cracks because of peer review.
It's all about money/status, apparently.

IainB:
Examining the scientific method, this post (link follows) looks at how traditional peer review seems to be failing. It seems to be correct, as well. A very interesting synopsis: Misuse of the scientific method has led to peer review failures with significant implications

I still hold out hope that reason will prevail.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page