Re: What is a "peer" for peer review?
- From: "LawsonE" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 02:20:52 -0700
"tadchem" <tadchem@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145867647.129419.214820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
LawsonE wrote:
<snip>
It's quite hard to write an accurate account of a contrived labratory
event
so why would you expect a reporter to be able to write an accurate
account
of a far more complicated real life event by interviewing the people
involved?
I mean, there's no "peer review" for news reporters so why would you
expect
them to be MORE accurate?
Experience shows that the popular press cannot even be relied upon to
get the correct spelling of the name of a principal party in a
newsworthy event - even if you spell it for them. I won't even go into
the numerous cases of outright fraud perpetrated in the name of 'news
reporting'.
That is why science does *not* trust popular press reports - or those
who do rely upon them. This is why we *have* peer review.
"Nothing truly worthwhile is ever easy." (variously attributed)
Heh, so sleep isn't worthwhile? Transcendental Meditation isn't worthwhile?
Watching a sunset isn't worthwhile?
And the media does its best. However, unlike the easy reporting job that
scientists have, journalists often have to sift through conflicting versions
in order to make a report. Scientists have the luxury of not having a
deadline, and Science itself can wait decades or even centuries before
coming to a consensus.
.
- References:
- What is a "peer" for peer review?
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: What is a "peer" for peer review?
- From: tadchem
- Re: What is a "peer" for peer review?
- From: LawsonE
- Re: What is a "peer" for peer review?
- From: tadchem
- What is a "peer" for peer review?
- Prev by Date: Re: Work - impulse
- Next by Date: No arbitrageur could possibly be slower or dumber than I am now.
- Previous by thread: Re: What is a "peer" for peer review?
- Next by thread: Re: What is a "peer" for peer review?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|