Friday, March 25, 2016

Beware the Bias


I recently heard and read in a few places people (conservative people) saying, "HEY y'all who support 'transgender' people and kids, you should look at what the EXPERTS are saying..." and they then proceeded to cite the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) who have come out with a study entitled, "Gender Ideology Harms Children..." and they begin citing some of the findings of this study.

Hmm, I thought. That's odd, I had not heard anything about professional doctors making this suggestion, not from the AMA or the APA... it struck me as odd that the professional organization for pediatricians was coming out with a study like this. But, having an open mind, I looked into what the experts were saying.

It was then that I realized that these were "experts," not experts. The ACP is NOT the big association of pediatricians that I assumed it was by the name. The well-recognized and long-lived pediatrician's association is the American Academy of Pediatrics. The AAP has been around since 1930 and has over 64,000 pediatrician members. They publish peer-reviewed research and have a staff of 390 people. The AAP has NOT come out in support of these "findings," that's the ACP.

And who is the ACP? They are a splinter group that formed out of the AAP to promote traditional and religious views of family. They were founded in 2002 and have between 60 and 200 members (not all of whom are pediatricians, I read). They have no peer-reviewed research. They welcome members who agree with their religious/moral views up front. Which is to say that their research is "validated" by people with an agenda to promote a specific bias.

This, of course, is not science. Scientific organizations have no faith creed you have to agree to at the outset. That is anti-science.

A TINY group (less than 1% the size of the AAP, mind you) with an agenda publishing "studies" that validate their pre-held biases is akin to tobacco-funded doctors coming out in favor of smoking, with "studies" that back up that bias. If you are dedicated to a religious/moral view going in to your research and your peers will only validate research that supports that pre-held bias, that is not science.

Beware groups that use science as a tool to further an agenda - especially so blatantly - and that does not have peer-reviews for their studies. That is not science, that is religion.

Also, beware any political groups/people who have traditionally decried "the so-called experts" who suddenly begin trumpeting "Hey! Science is right and validating what I believe!" They aren't dedicated to facts, science or truth. They are dedicated to an agenda. Which is fine if that's what they're dedicated to, but they should be clear on that point up front.

*Side note: I am not saying that scientists are free from bias. Of course, they aren't, they're human with human biases. But there's a difference between having a bias but still being dedicated to going where the data leads while being open to peer-review as a check against any possible biases... there's a difference between that and using science to try to validate your views. Again, that's religion (and in a negative sense), not science.

64 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall's post (minus the abusive language):

You could not more clearly demonstrate your own pro-LGBT bias. Suggesting ACP members are only "experts" as opposed to experts simply because they are pediatricians who have morals could not be more self-indicting. It seems that, at least according to you, they were experts while they were still members of the AAP, but now by forming a separate group, their expertise has somehow diminished. How does that work exactly?

It is crystal clear that you did little to actually review their report (which is only a preliminary statement, with a more complete version to follow in the summer), or you could not, if you were an honest person, imply that they are not scientific. As is so typical of you, you purposely choose to offer no link to the actual report or to the ACP site in order to prove your allegations about them. The allegation in particular that they are "not science" would be proven a lie by doing so. Currently, my computer is in its death throes and I am presently unable to add a link like I wanted to do. But when I visited the site and was able to see their report, it contained references to "science" by groups such as the APA.

So what we have here is hypocrisy, since you are not beyond citing pro-LGBT "science" to validate YOUR heretical positions on [God's love for all people]. YOU are dedicated to the LGBT agenda, and nothing could be more factual about you. Thus, readers of this blog (if there are any other readers besides Craig and myself) should beware of YOU, as you are indeed agenda driven.

The agenda of the ACP is honorable, and you are shameless in decrying them for their devotion to truth, tradition and what is best for children. That latter part is kinda what pediatricians are supposed to be all about.

====
To answer your question...

Suggesting ACP members are only "experts" as opposed to experts simply because they are pediatricians who have morals could not be more self-indicting. It seems that, at least according to you, they were experts while they were still members of the AAP, but now by forming a separate group, their expertise has somehow diminished. How does that work exactly?

Because they abandoned Peer Review, an essential part of being a professional scientist. Thus, they are no longer actual "experts," only people with an agenda trying to use/misuse/abuse data to support their biases.

See how that works?

Dan Trabue said...

since you are not beyond citing pro-LGBT "science" to validate YOUR heretical positions...

Marshall, you will not be allowed to use abusive language here. Deleted. But to address your question: I'm citing science that has been peer reviewed by the vast majority of experts in their field, using actual scientific methods. That you disagree with the data does not make it "pro-LGBT 'science,'" it's just science.

Marshall Art said...

You're a liar. Is that too abusive for you? I had not used any abusive language in my original comment. But you deleted what you didn't like and replaced it with something that doesn't reflect anything I said. You put words in my mouth, again proving that you do all that you prohibit others from doing.

"Because they abandoned Peer Review..."

Really? I missed where the ACP stated this. Perhaps you could find a spine and provide an actual link to the actual place this is stated.

"...an essential part of being a professional scientist."

Really? By whose standards? Do you have the actual creed of the Scientists Club that states the relevance of peer review to being a professional scientist?

"Thus, they are no longer actual "experts," only people with an agenda trying to use/misuse/abuse data to support their biases."

Nonsense. No one misuses scientific data for the furtherance of an agenda more than do those pro-homosexual "scientists" who cling to anything they think will accomplish the purpose. Note again the incredibly flawed studies used by the APA and others to pretend there is no distinct benefit to a child in being raised by either the child's own biological parents or by male & female/father & mother adopting parents.

Like all other proponents of sexual immorality, you believe peer review is some sort of stamp of of truth. It is not, and what's more, the process is horribly flawed and corrupt. This is not a secret. It is not hidden or denied except by those whose agenda desperately seeks validation from like-minded "scientists". You're pathetic in your devotion to sexual immorality.

Craig said...

I can't help but notice that you haven't dealt with the science, the methodology, or the conclusions, you've based your entire dismissal on your perception of the character of people you don't know.

I'm sure you aren't letting your bias influence your reaction at all.

Dan Trabue said...

They are not engaging in science when they forego peer review. At that point, it's only an echo chamber and not science.

If they were to engage in actual strenuous science and submitted it for peer review, what do you think the piers with fine? Do you think the 60,000 members of the AAP are all conspiring against these 100 or so doctors?do you see the problem with not engaging in peer review?

Marshall Art said...

First, do you even understand what "peer review" is?

Secondly, if you had even a shred of integrity and honesty, you would know that the report that provoked your post is preliminary with a full peer reviewed version to appear sometime this summer. The ACP, then, does NOT "forego" peer review, and indeed cites peer reviewed studies in its many reports on various issues.

Thirdly, you seem to think that it is automatic that the AAP would find problems with the studies conducted by the ACP.

Fourth, it is more than merely conceivable that 95% of the 60,000 members of the AAP could agree with the conclusions of any given study conducted by the ACP, or agree with any position of the ACP, and still the official response by the AAP could be in disagreement due to the bias of that organization. So no, I do not think the membership would conspire against the ACP, anymore than I believe every union member supports the political position of the union itself.

Thus far, I have been woefully unable to find any evidence that the ACP routinely "foregoes" peer review. I'll wait here while you provide that evidence.

Craig said...

"They are not engaging in science when they forego peer review."

Given the fact that they haven't yet released any of the actual research or methodologies, but have only released the abstract and their conclusions, the above seems premature at best, slanderous at worst.

I guess it's OK for you to give your bias free reign while attacking the character of others without evidence.

Dan Trabue said...

Perhaps I'm mistaken. I see no evidence that they have ever, since their 2002 founding, had a peer-reviewed study. Perhaps they have. If I am shown that they have done so, and they will do so with this research, I will gladly admit the mistake.

I don't think I've made a mistake.

Are you all suspecting they will submit their research to an actual peer review process, or do you mean just of those who already agree with them? (ie, not an actual peer review)?

Do you know what peer review is, or what the purpose of it is?

Marshall Art said...

Your comment implies that the ACP is somehow required to ever engage in research of its own. I don't see that such is necessary in order to judge the professionalism of its members or the validity of its positions. That it comments on existing research, coming to conclusions it believes the data demands, should be enough for any honest person, if the path to those conclusions are thoroughly explained. In that sense, they become reviewers themselves, as they are indeed peers of pediatric researchers.

You haven't answered the question of what you think peer review is, and instead ask the question yourself. This suggests you don't read the comments posted to your own blog. Nice.

But here is my answer in full. It includes reasons why the process isn't all you desperately need it to be to pretend professionals attached to the ACP aren't "expert". Should you demonstrate the grace to actually read it in full, you'll note that bias is quite common in the peer review process, both for and against any given study. That bias may result in a paper being rejected from review at the start, being judges worthless for a variety of reasons having little to do with the conclusions or because the conclusions conflict with the position and work of the reviewer.

The bottom line is that citing peer review, demanding it as a pretense of merit, is a deceitful tactic commonly employed by those who do not want to accept the truth a study's results and conclusions demand. AS those like yourself find truth to be "abusive language", this is not unexpected.

Dan Trabue said...

Peer review, in the broader sense, meaning that others can review your data, your research, your procedures, etc, and see if they find it legitimate, reproducible, consistent with all the facts. This group has failed at this in the past and, given their commitment to their biases, will almost certainly fail at it in the future. One CAN NOT be committed to one expected answer and only seek data to support that conclusion if one is a scientist.

Again I ask, have this tiny splinter group (much less than 1% of pediatricians) done research - ANY research - that has been reviewed by the larger body of pediatricians and had it hold up? I have not seen any data to support that conclusion.

Is peer review imperfect? Of course, the peers being human and all. But given time and repeated investigation, unless the vast majority are involved in some conspiratorial cover up, one would expect the review of many would reveal errors if errors exist. That is why peer review is an essential step in science and without it, you don't have science, you have a grade school fanboy club.

Craig said...

"Do you know what peer review is, or what the purpose of it is?"

Why yes I do, and I also know that the peer review process is not free from bias as well. I also realize that Truth and accuracy are not solely determined by peer review.

But you just cling to this excuse for parading your bias and unwillingness to address the science, methodology, and conclusions while simply attacking the character of the doctors.

Anonymous said...

Craig...

and I also know that the peer review process is not free from bias as well.

Of course it isn't. The "peers" involved are human and humans have biases. You all keep barking up this tree as if it were a claim that anyone has made. It isn't.

The whole POINT of peer review is to be a safeguard against the fallible human biases and mistakes. If you do a test and get one result and conclude "A is true!.." that's one step in the scientific process. (If, on the other hand, you begin with the assumption - an assumption you are committed to wholeheartedly - that A is true and you do some tests to find support for that result and find, lo and behold! "A is true!," that is also sort of a step along the way, although it's already admitting a huge commitment to the bias, so it's starting off with a flaw).

Then, when you offer up your conclusion "A is true" and your procedures (here are the data and the processes I used in my testing) for your peers to review it and consider it, that is another step. And if you and one other peer finds "A is true," that is another step in the process. (although, again, if your peer is pre-committed to the proposition that A is true, the results are already in question). And if 1000 scientists review your data and the two who were pre-committed to "A is true" still find it so, but 998 peers do NOT reach the same results or conclusion, that calls into serious question the notion that A is true. Indeed, at that point in the process, it's time for the initial two fellas to go back to the drawing board, their results will never be published or accepted in the larger community.

Now, unless you have some reason to suspect that the 998/1000 are deliberately trying to fake results, you almost have to conclude in that step of the process, that A is not true. Peer review is a step in insuring AGAINST bias because it begins to strain credibility to suggest that 99% of the scientists reviewing the data have been paid off or are in a conspiracy against "A is true."

See how science works? This is the great thing about peer review - it helps (imperfectly but efficiently over all) protect against the exact sort of bias that might throw data off. This is why peer review is essential to establishing reasonable conclusions and those who are not engaging in reasonable peer review are not engaging in science.

~Dan

Marshall Art said...

"This group has failed at this in the past and, given their commitment to their biases, will almost certainly fail at it in the future."

ACP has failed at this? Really. So nice of you to link to examples. Again, I'm not even sure they've conducted any studies of their own to this point. To what research do you refer exactly?

"One CAN NOT be committed to one expected answer and only seek data to support that conclusion if one is a scientist."

What proof or evidence can you provide that indicates this is how ACP operates? Seems we again find you have a problem distinguishing between fact and opinion. The bias of ACP, in your mind, is a fact because why, exactly?

It's crystal clear that you took no time to read the link I provided. It is but one of many I could have cited that deals with the many and great flaws of the peer review process. It is NOT what you need to believe it is. It has more to do with protecting funding than it does with ascertaining truth and fact in science. It is highly political and wholly subjective. But it is a crutch used by people like you in order to write off the positions, conclusions and findings of those whose work makes a mockery of your cherished, but false beliefs.

Craig said...

"If you do a test and get one result and conclude "A is true!.." that's one step in the scientific process. (If, on the other hand, you begin with the assumption - an assumption you are committed to wholeheartedly - that A is true and you do some tests to find support for that result and find, lo and behold! "A is true!," that is also sort of a step along the way, although it's already admitting a huge commitment to the bias, so it's starting off with a flaw)."

Yet you have no proof of your assumption. It's reasonable to conclude that at least part of your attacks on the character of these doctors and scientists is that you are biased against their position. So, given your bias and your lack of any sort of evidence, why should anyone pay you any heed at all?

"And if 1000 scientists review your data and the two who were pre-committed to "A is true" still find it so, but 998 peers do NOT reach the same results or conclusion, that calls into serious question the notion that A is true."

And if (in the real fact based world) this actually happens, then you might have a point. Obviously one would look at the biases of the reviewers and factor that in as well. But until they release the actual study, this is simply a bunch of bias driven character attack on your part.

"See how science works?"

Wow are you really a scientist?

"This is the great thing about peer review - it helps (imperfectly but efficiently over all) protect against the exact sort of bias that might throw data off."

Except, of course, when the peer review process is misused to promote an agenda or to squash dissent.

"This is why peer review is essential to establishing reasonable conclusions and those who are not engaging in reasonable peer review are not engaging in science."

I didn't know you got to set the rules for science.


Craig said...

Again, feel free to argue against the specific conclusions and offer unbiased rebuttal, but if all you have is ad hom and assaults on peoples character, maybe the way of Grace would suggest that you move on.

Dan Trabue said...

It's reasonable to conclude that at least part of your attacks on the character of these doctors and scientists is that you are biased against their position.

No, I'm biased against people masquerading as scientists to promote an agenda. I assumed, when I read the initial headlines that this was the actual main group of professional pediatricians. I very quickly discovered that this is not a group that does science, but one that tries to manipulate data to support their biased conclusions.

I'm not setting the rules for science. Peer review is an essential component of the scientific process. I'm not even especially a science-y guy, but I know enough of basic scientific premises to know that peer review is an essential component, and really, it's just rational BECAUSE of bias.

Question: There were a tiny fraction of researchers who had allegiance to tobacco companies who questioned/denied the science about how bad tobacco is for you. Do you think it is reasonable to take them seriously if they produce no research that is peer reviewed by non-tobacco scientists?

Of course not.

Craig said...

"Mention peer review to any researcher and the chances are that he or she will soon start to grumble. Although the system by which research papers and grant applications are vetted is often described as science’s “gold standard,” it has always garnered mixed reviews from academics at its sharp end."


"Firstly, leaked emails showed that Phil Jones, former head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, had pledged to exclude papers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report “even if we have to redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is.”

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/06/17/the-problems-with-credit-for-peer-review/

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-peer-fraught-problems.html

"At Society and Space, every initial submission is typically read by all four of the editors as part of a prescreening process. WE CONSIDER THE PAPER'S FIT WITH THE BROAD AIMS OF THE JOURNAL, quality of the paper, its theoretical sophistication (i.e., the suitability of the approach for our readership), its empirical rigor, the appropriateness of length and style, and whether a redirection to another journal is a better route than peer review with us, given the answers to these considerations. We then contact the author to redirect them to another journal, or we offer advice on how to get the paper into a state suitable for review with us, or we enter the paper into peer review." (ALL CAPS ADDED)

http://societyandspace.com/2014/05/29/the-problems-of-peer-review/

Interesting, scientific journals decide which papers to peer review based on how those papers fit with the "BROAD AIMS" of the journal. I guess we don't even know how many parers don't even get peer reviewed because they get rejected because of bias.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844

"The two researchers, Douglas Peters and Stephen Ceci, wanted to test how reliable and unbiased this process actually is. To do this, they selected 12 papers that had been published about two to three years earlier in extremely selective American psychology journals.

The researchers then altered the names and university affiliations on the journal manuscripts and resubmitted the papers to the same journal. In theory, these papers should have been high quality — they'd already made it into these prestigious publications. If the process worked well, the studies that were published the first time would be approved for publication again the second time around.

What Peters and Ceci found was surprising. Nearly 90 percent of the peer reviewers who looked at the resubmitted articles recommended against publication this time. In many cases, they said the articles had "serious methodological flaws.""

Craig said...

Actual scientific research that suggests that "peer review' isn't everything you think it is. (FYI the article this is from has links to at least 5 scientific studies)

"The Lancet editor Richard Horton has called the process "unjust, unaccountable ... often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." Not to mention that identifying peer reviewers and getting their comments slows down the progress of science — papers can be held up for months or years — and costs society a lot of money. Scientists and professors, after all, need to take time away from their research to edit, unpaid, the work of others."

"Richard Smith, the former editor of the BMJ, summed up: "We have little or no evidence that peer review 'works,' but we have lots of evidence of its downside." Another former editor of the Lancet, Robbie Fox, used to joke that his journal "had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom." Not exactly reassuring comments from the editors of the world's leading medical journals."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hank-campbell-the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747

"But does peer review `work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts"

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

"See how science works?"

It would seem that science doesn't even agree with this.

It looks like attacks on the character of these guys is all you have left.

Craig said...

"No, I'm biased against people masquerading as scientists to promote an agenda."

Which you can't prove.

"I assumed, when I read the initial headlines that this was the actual main group of professional pediatricians."

Maybe assuming is part of the problem.

"I very quickly discovered that this is not a group that does science, but one that tries to manipulate data to support their biased conclusions."

Once again, charges against the character of people you know virtually nothing about driven by your admitted bias. If you have proof, this might be a good time to show it. I note again, that you can't attack their science, their research, or their methodology until they have published the final study, so all you have is attacks on character. Once the full study comes out than you may well have a basis for your charges, but now all you have is bias driven presumptions about their character.

"Peer review is an essential component of the scientific process."

Perhaps you should have researched that statement. I'm sure you will spend plenty of time perusing the links above to the articles and studies linked in the articles and be prepared with amazing rebuttal evidence against the scientists who disagree with you.

"I know enough of basic scientific premises to know that peer review is an essential component, and really, it's just rational BECAUSE of bias."

Again,maybe you think you know.

Craig said...

"There were a tiny fraction of researchers who had allegiance to tobacco companies who questioned/denied the science about how bad tobacco is for you. Do you think it is reasonable to take them seriously if they produce no research that is peer reviewed by non-tobacco scientists?"

Given the flaws of the peer review process I don't know if I can make a definitive statement. However, I would certainly take into account whether the research was being funded by tobacco companies in my evaluation. Would I simply dismiss it without even giving it consideration based on my anti-tobacco bias, no. Would I automatically assume that the research was wrong, no. In the same way I wouldn't automatically and uncritically accept research by "anti-tobacco" biased scientists either.

I would look carefully at as many resources as possible and take as many factors as possible into consideration.

What I would NOT do, is impugn people character or dismiss their conclusions out of hand based on either my bias or my perception of someone elses bias.

Dan Trabue said...

The question is: If they aren't engaging in peer review for any studies they are doing, do you trust it?

Do you not understand how peer review (ie, giving a wide range of experts to review your data and offer response) is a way of guarding against bias?

Craig said...

"The question is: If they aren't engaging in peer review for any studies they are doing, do you trust it?"

This question is based on your bias driven assumption about what you believe that might (or might not) do in the future. To answer would be, as is the part of this thread not involving character attacks, speculation. I'd rather show grace and wait to see the entirety of the study, not jump to conclusions driven by bias. However given the very real, widespread, and pervasive flaws in the peer review process I'm not sure it makes any difference or not.

"Do you not understand how peer review (ie, giving a wide range of experts to review your data and offer response) is a way of guarding against bias?"

Do you not understand that I've provided you with quotes, and links (which contain more links) that make a very compelling case that the peer review process is rife with bias. Rife to the point that papers are not even considered for review unless they agree with the bias of the reviewing journal.

Maybe you just missed those comments.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, you appealed for people to consider the advice of experts. That's what I'm doing, not some group that pulled out from the 99% of the experts because they were committed to a religious belief, according to their website. And they welcome all WHO AGREE WITH THEM to be part of their group.

Who is appealing to bias and who is appealing to science?

Do you think that 99% of the experts will agree with their research? If not, do you think that it's reasonable to think that the 99% are mistaken or the 1%?

Marshall Art said...

I looked at the ACP website and didn't see anything about being committed to a religious belief. What I did see was they are committed to whatever is best for kids without influence by political correctness. That is why they split off.

As the AAP seems equally concerned with their own mission, vision and values, I would suppose they are no more likely to welcome anyone who does not share in those than would the ACP. I challenge Dan to find any hint that the two groups are different in this regard.

I also challenge Dan to go to the "about us" page of the ACP site and find something that is of any real concern to him. I can think of two that might be considering Dan's leftist mindset:

1. They believe children do best being raised by a mother and a father, preferably their biological mother and father.

2. They believe children are of equal value from the moment of conception to adulthood.

Beyond these two scientifically supported points, I don't see anything on their lists of values and such that would make them "extreme", "renegade", biased in any negative or harmful way, or less expert than any pediatrician of the AAP.

Dan also seems to believe that every member of the AAP would be likely to oppose all that the ACP stands for. I don't think it is rational to expect that every member is in full agreement with everything the AAP does or believes simply because they maintain their own membership in the organization. This seems most incongruous given Dan's belief that not all muslims believe everything the violent extremists believe. Apparently, only muslims are individuals within that group, but not pediatricians within the AAP. Kind of absurd given that ACP members came from the AAP. They split off, but there's no reason to believe that all who didn't are uniform in their reasons for not joining.

Also, I don't know how to find this out without polling ACP members, but I wonder if it's possible that some still retain their membership in the AAP at the same time.

Marshall Art said...

Also, Craig linked to many more sources for questioning the integrity of the peer review process. There are many more. When I first found such a source, it was an article from a scientific website that was attached to some scientific publication. The biggest critics of the process are scientific people. The biggest supporters are biased people like Dan who need to believe there is some legitimate validation for that which they support. Peer review, that is, simply saying their validation was reviewed and contrary stuff might not be, is good enough for them. Unfortunately, the reality is that it is really quite meaningless with regard to the merits of any contrary work.

Craig said...

"Who is appealing to bias and who is appealing to science?"

At the risk of going full Trabue and just repeating myself over and over again, given the systemic problems rife within the entire peer review process, I'd say it's pick 'em.

Look, you can continue to ignore that with which you disagree and to continue to attack every thing EXCEPT the science behind this report, but you can't really expect anyone to take you seriously.

Dan Trabue said...

Because you did not be seen to be clear on what I am speaking about, when I am speaking of peer review I am speaking of the notion that if you have a hypothesis that you believe you can demonstrate with tests, that other peers, other scientists, other people can run similar tests to confirm if your findings are correct or not. That peer review is essential to science and the scientific process. That's some magazines have perhaps had a hard time implementing effective peer review is not an argument against it. Cause as I said, peer review is a critical part of the scientific process.

Craig said...

So, your response to data chronicling extensive and systemic abuse of the "peer review" process, is to simply dismiss it and repeat yourself.

1. You would have had so much more credibility had I not repeatedly pointed out the fact that you retreated in the face of contrary data in this thread.
2. You would have had so much more credibility had you actually be able to dispute or counter the extensive data provided.
3. You would have had so much more credibility had you not simply repeated yourself as if repetition settles everything.

Dan Trabue said...

No, Craig. That is literally not my response. I'm sorry you don't understand.

Craig said...

OK whatever you say.

1. You still avoided addressing the significant amount of contrary data in this thread until I pointed it out repeatedly, which undercuts you claim that you want to see data.
2. You have not provided anything (besides simply repeating yourself) to counter the data provided.
3. You simply repeated your earlier position. "Cause as I said, peer review is a critical part of the scientific process." I'm sorry that your own words confirm this.

Look, you claim it's "a critical part of science" yet we also have this "But does peer review `work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts", it seems like maybe you might want to do some research into the "facts" of the "peer review' process rather than operating on what you presume the case to be.

I'm really sorry for you, but the 5 minute Google search that produced the data I quoted and linked to above (many of the links containing additional links as well) produced such a volume of results that I just stopped adding.

I know it may be hard, but sometimes that facts just might demonstrate that we are wrong about some things. This just might possibly be the case here. It's really OK to admit when we are wrong, it's a mature and grown up thing to do.

Dan Trabue said...

So, Person One says "I've done a test and have determined AUTHORITATIVELY and WITHOUT DOUBT that purple unicorns always vomit rainbows! It has NOW been established as a fact!"

With no peer review, are we to simply say, "Oh, he ran a test and reached this conclusion. IT MUST BE A FACT and there is nothing we can do but accept it..."?

Or what do you propose we replace the scientific process with? Every person for themselves when it comes to facts?

Dan Trabue said...

Or just turn to fundamentalists and let them tell us what God wants us to know the facts are...? If so, which fundamentalists and on whose say so?

Craig said...

"Or what do you propose we replace the scientific process with? Every person for themselves when it comes to facts?"

I see no reason why I am obligated to propose anything. It's clear that there are significant, widespread, systemic failures with the "peer review" process. Acknowledging the data that affirms those problems does not require that I reinvent science. It is simply the presentation of data that militates against your naive childlike trust in a flawed process and underscores your unwillingness to interact with data that doesn't agree with your preconceptions. One possibility would be to fix the broken system. But that would require folks like you to acknowledge that it's broken and others to give up their positions of power and ability to shape opinion.

"Or just turn to fundamentalists and let them tell us what God wants us to know the facts are...? If so, which fundamentalists and on whose say so?"

I have to say, that your approach to contrary data is interesting. You don't acknowledge it, you don't counter it, you don't rebut it. You simply throw out nonsensical non sequiturs as if that somehow makes the contrary data go away and allows you to retain your naive, childlike, contrary to reality preconceived notion.

Interesting, but not particularly credible.

Craig said...

"Or what do you propose we replace the scientific process with?"

I could propose virtually anything and it would be more reasonable that you presuming that the "system" is all perfectly fine and is not affected by politics, money, or bias.

Marshall Art said...

"With no peer review, are we to simply say, "Oh, he ran a test and reached this conclusion. IT MUST BE A FACT and there is nothing we can do but accept it..."?"

Peer review does not insure that the conclusions of any study reviewed are actually factual, conclusive and beyond being found false in later studies. From all I could find, it is merely to determine if the reviewer believes the study was done via proper methodologies. There isn't much in the way of attempts to replicate the study, though one could make such an attempt and expect to get the same results if one follows the same methodology. That expectation, however, would be held due to the assumption that nothing was falsified in the original study.

Reviewers aren't typically paid and they are scientists with their own workload, many of whom would rather not be bothered with requests to review the work of another, especially if that other suggests something that might contradict that which the reviewer believes or contradicts work for which the reviewer is receiving grant money.

There are thousands of studies that never get reviewed for reasons having nothing to do with merits of the study or the legitimacy of the results. The study may not be "sexy" enough for a journal, too general for another, not interesting to the editor to even be considered. This may be true even after a study is reviewed.

Using your unicorn example, imagine someone actually found a unicorn, it was purple and when it vomited, beautiful colorful rainbows spewed from its mouth. If no journal wanted to publish the findings of the scientist who found the sick unicorn, that would not mean the unicorn doesn't exist.

In short, the only people who really give a flying purple unicorn's ass about peer review are those who wish to denigrate that which does not align with their ideologies. For the scientist, it's more about whether or not funding will appear to finance further work. It has nothing to do with whether or not his findings have proven anything.

Dan Trabue said...

So again, what do we replace peer review with? Blind acceptance of all claims? No one is that stupid.

Dan Trabue said...

Peer review does not insure that the conclusions of any study reviewed are actually factual, conclusive and beyond being found false in later studies.

Just to state the obvious:

Peer review does not claim to insure anything.

The ability to replicate somebody's results helps support the original premise.

The inability to replicate somebody's results raises questions about the original premise.

That's all. It's a way of double and triple (and so on) checking a claim. It is reasonable.

If somebody runs an experiment and claims "By doing steps 1, 2, 3 and 4 precisely we were able to turn lead into gold!" and other researchers try to replicate the experiment and can not, repeatedly can not, others can not, then it is completely reasonable to say "I rather doubt the claims of the original researchers."

THIS is a much more self-evident reasonable approach than "Let's just assume that all claims of fact ARE fact."

I'm open to other ideas, but I'm NOT open to the idea of blind faith in a group's claims simply because they made them.

What is there to argue about here, fellas?

Craig said...

"So again, what do we replace peer review with? Blind acceptance of all claims? No one is that stupid."

Why not start with ridiculous, overblown, exaggerated, "the sky is falling", hysterical, questions that have no relationship to the problem at hand. Then, we just kill all of the scientists and replace them with either Houngans, Mambos, or just random Hilary Clinton supporters. Once that's done with we can work on just eliminating any sort of objective reality and just embrace what we feel to be correct based on our presumptions and assumptions.

"Peer review does not claim to insure anything."

"Peer review" is inanimate and unable to make any claims. You, however, have made claims of fact about "peer review". Those claims have been called into question by actual data (which you keep pretending does not exist), and asking ridiculous rhetorical questions instead of actually providing and counter to the data.

"The ability to replicate somebody's results helps support the original premise. The inability to replicate somebody's results raises questions about the original premise."

Yes, that's part of what many non scientist laypersons call "the scientific method". The problem is it doesn't have anything to do with the widespread systemic flaws in the "peer review" process. Repeat ability and test ability are much more of an objective measure as opposed to the more subjective, biased, and influenced by politics and money "peer review' process.

"THIS is a much more self-evident reasonable approach than "Let's just assume that all claims of fact ARE fact.""

Well, since no one is making the claim you falsely allege, I'm not sure what your point is. I guess you can say you kicked the ass of that straw man or that you demolished an position that you actually made up, if that somehow builds your self esteem. The problems is, it just continues your attempt to divert attention from the data presented that disputes your claims of fact.

Craig said...

"I'm open to other ideas, but I'm NOT open to the idea of blind faith in a group's claims simply because they made them."

You claim to be open to ideas, but apparently not data that is contrary to your preconceptions. would it be possible, please, for you to demonstrate the factual basis of your above claim? Could you please show an actual example of anyone in this conversation doing what you claim? Will you retract your claim if you cannot demonstrate it to be fact?

"What is there to argue about here, fellas?"

Interesting question. You've been arguing against things no one has said and positions no one has taken. You have not even acknowledged the data that call into question your basic premise regarding the sacredness of the "peer review" process. You ignore the fact that organizations/publications that publish reviews of "scientific" papers are blatant and upfront about refusing to even consider reviewing papers that don't align with their particular biases. Your refusal to deal with this indisputable fact is even more puzzling given that the very heart of your complaint is that the ACP folks are seeking members who share their beliefs. If the desire to exclude those who disagree is bad for the ACP, then it's just as bad for everyone else.

You are correct that there is really very little reason to argue that the process of "peer review' is systemically and deeply flawed. That it is rife with bias and susceptible to the influence of money, politics, and ideology to the point of refusing to submit papers to review based on ideological agreement. So, why you continue to argue for such a flawed system is confusing. Why you choose not to respond to or counter that data that supports this claim is confusing as well. Why, instead of actually supporting your position, you choose to offer a series of ridiculous rhetorical questions based on your imagination rather than reality is an additional source of confusion.

Dan Trabue said...

You ignore the fact that organizations/publications that publish reviews of "scientific" papers are blatant and upfront about refusing to even consider reviewing papers that don't align with their particular biases.

Two questions (or one question, asked two ways): Do you realize that this is literally and specifically not what I've been talking about - this process of magazines opting to publish or not publish articles/reviews?

Do you realize that what I have been speaking of is the notion of NOT blindly accepting claims of "facts" because one person has done research, but that the research should be replicable... Peer review in that sense, do you recognize that this is what I've been speaking of, not the specific review of research in magazines?

Marshall Art said...

But peer review does not involve replicating the studies. They only give an opinion on whether or not the methods supposedly used were sound, with the assumption that all data is truthfully related. It is up to others to see if the results can be replicated using the same methods of the original study that was reviewed. Reviewers are doing their own work. They don't stop what they're doing to engage in a new study in an attempt to replicate the study reviewed.

And again, given all the studies that do not find themselves considered worthy of review, you assume they are all poorly done, fraudulent in their claims or beyond replication by any who choose to try. This is absolutely not the case and thus, to dismiss any study simply because it was not reviewed by peers is simply a cowardly response to that which results in outcomes that your ideology cannot accept.

Craig said...

"Do you realize that this is literally and specifically not what I've been talking about - this process of magazines opting to publish or not publish articles/reviews?"

Really, you now endorse groups selecting their members and choosing the papers they 'peer review" based on agreement with their precepts. It seems as though you criticize the ACP for doing this (even though you have no actual evidence of what you claim), yet don't seem bothered when other organizations openly suppress what doesn't agree with them.

You do realize that it's not so much the publishing of the reviews as it is the use of biased criteria to decide which papers to put through the review process.

"Do you realize that what I have been speaking of is the notion of NOT blindly accepting claims of "facts" because one person has done research, but that the research should be replicable... Peer review in that sense, do you recognize that this is what I've been speaking of, not the specific review of research in magazines?"

Do you realize that no one is suggesting "blindly accepting" anything? Do you realize that this "blindly accepting" nonsense is simply one more falsehood you have concocted to try to avoid the data. Do you realize that the end result of the "peer review" process is the publication of those reviews in journals?

Argue with the data or not. But at least have the courage to argue against a position someone has actually taken, not something you've invented.

Craig said...

MA,

One problem Dan has here is the fact that he jumped too early in his wholesale demonization of the ACP and their study. I say this because he can't attack the study itself (since it hasn't been published yet), and he can't attack the science or the methodology for the same reason. In reality his whole issue about lack of "peer review" is based on him making assumptions about what he thinks the ACP might or might not do. So, instead of constructive criticism of the actual study, or countering the data that shows flaws in the "peer review" system he is left to flail away at arguments no one is making and to try to redefine the "peer review" process in order to preserve his preconceptions.

Craig said...

Dan,

Maybe with your extensive knowledge of the ins and outs of the scientific method and peer review you missed the fact that when something is peer reviewed the results are usually published in what's called a scientific journal. So as I'm sure you realize, the goal of peer review is to be published in one of these journals. In many cases these journals are published in a format that gives the appearance of being a magazine, but is actually a scientific journal. I know it can be easy to mistake something that looks like something else for the thing it appears to be, not for what it is. But there is a difference and your bizarre attempt (not really that bizarre, you do it often), to use semantics as a dodge when the data goes against you doesn't really help your cause.

Craig said...

" But there's a difference between having a bias but still being dedicated to going where the data leads while being open to peer-review as a check against any possible biases... there's a difference between that and using science to try to validate your views. Again, that's religion (and in a negative sense), not science."



"A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts'.2"

Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA2002;287:2784 -6

I guess what we have here is Dan asserting that using science it validate your views is "religion", but taking "peer review" on faith is "science".

Because a study by the JAMA (I know it's just a magazine, much like People) is so much less credible than something Dan pulled out of his ass.

Craig said...

OH Look, more data for you to ignore.



http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full

Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review In Medicine. London: Nuffield Provincials Hospital Trust,1985
↵ Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA2002;287:2784 -6
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA1998;280:237 -40
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ2004;328:673
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵ WennerÃ¥s C, Wold A. Sexism and nepotism in peer-review. Nature1997;387:341 -3
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ Peters D, Ceci S. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci 1982;5:187 -255
CrossRef
↵ McIntyre N, Popper K. The critical attitude in medicine: the need for a new ethics. BMJ1983;287:1919 -23
FREE Full Text
↵ Horton R. Pardonable revisions and protocol reviews. Lancet 1997; 349: 6
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ Rennie D. Misconduct and journal peer review. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer Review In Health Sciences, 2nd edn. London: BMJ Books, 2003:118 -29
↵ McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA1990;263:1371 -6
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, the PEER investigators. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality: a randomised controlled trial. JAMA1998;280:240 -2
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomised trial. JAMA1998;280:234 -7
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ1999;318:23 -7
Abstract/FREE Full Text

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34518/title/Opinion--Scientific-Peer-Review-in-Crisis/

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.abstract

"A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic."

67% of retractions are due to FRAUD and you still cling to "peer review".

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bogus-science-paper-reveals-peer-review-s-flaws-1.2054004

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

Marshall Art said...

>"...when something is peer reviewed the results are usually published in what's called a scientific journal."

From what I could glean, it is the scientific journal that decides whether or not a submitted paper is reviewed in the first place. A researcher submits the results of his work, his methods and such, and the journal editor decides if it is right for his particular publication. If he believes it is, it is then submitted for review by peers selected by the journal. Even after review, however, there's no guarantee the review will be published. So, a researcher/scientist needs to find someone to consider his research first. This is where most of them languish without review, based on the whims of the journal editor. It has little to do with the merits and conclusions of the research in most cases. A great discovery needs to find an appropriate journal for publicizing the findings of that discovery. And still it would rely on the ability of the editor to see the value of the findings.

Peer review has far less value than is ascribed to it by those who wish to dismiss results that are inconvenient to an agenda or ideology.

Marshall Art said...

The same can be said for citation indexes. There are lists of people who cite others in their own articles. What is important here is the bias of the people citing others. They are not likely to cite anyone who disagrees, so one whose position conflicts with, say, a progressive tax proponent, won't be cited by that proponent, regardless of the merits of the opponent's position. Geoffery Kruse-Stafford (if I remember his name correctly) tried to use that one in the same way peer review is used, as if the lack of citation is a true reflection on the wisdom of the person not cited by others. It's an equally weak ploy when dealing with the opposing position itself is proven troublesome.

Dan Trabue said...

Two questions (or one question, asked two ways): Do you realize that this is literally and specifically not what I've been talking about - this process of magazines opting to publish or not publish articles/reviews?

Do you realize that what I have been speaking of is the notion of NOT blindly accepting claims of "facts" because one person has done research, but that the research should be replicable... Peer review in that sense, do you recognize that this is what I've been speaking of, not the specific review of research in magazines?

...

Just to state the obvious:

Peer review does not claim to insure anything.

The ability to replicate somebody's results helps support the original premise.

The inability to replicate somebody's results raises questions about the original premise.

That's all. It's a way of double and triple (and so on) checking a claim. It is reasonable.

If somebody runs an experiment and claims "By doing steps 1, 2, 3 and 4 precisely we were able to turn lead into gold!" and other researchers try to replicate the experiment and can not, repeatedly can not, others can not, then it is completely reasonable to say "I rather doubt the claims of the original researchers."

THIS is a much more self-evident reasonable approach than "Let's just assume that all claims of fact ARE fact."

...

So again, what do we replace peer review with? Blind acceptance of all claims?

Marshall Art said...

This whole thing began when you referred to a lack of peer review in relation to the ACP announcement, or in anything they've done thus far, as if that is a reason to dismiss what they've done or what they do or what they claim to have discovered. The clear implication of your having brought it up is that one must not consider their findings valid due to the lack of peer review. Indeed, that there must be something less than true until peer review somehow validates their findings, which it wouldn't necessarily do even if you were to agree with those findings yourself.

I don't know why you would believe that we are willing to blindly accept the claims of the ACP, or anyone else. It is an ironic suggestion given how quickly the pro-LGBT activists and enablers have been so quick to accept as gospel everything that hints at supporting the LGBT agenda, be it "proof" that they are all born that way, "proof" that they are all normal and no different than anyone else due to some finding or other or "proof" that same-sex parenting has no negative effect on outcomes of the children in their care.

Dan Trabue said...

Of course, you're not advocating blind acceptance, Marshall. You AGREE that claims should be scrutinized. What is the term for that..?

Craig said...

http://www.upworthy.com/16-years-ago-a-doctor-published-a-study-it-was-completely-made-up-and-it-made-us-all-sicker?g=2

One more example of how effective "peer review" is.

Anonymous said...

What? He made a claim and you don't just blindly accept it? You think it should be able to stand up to scrutiny?! What is the term for that...?

~Dan

Craig said...

"From what I could glean, it is the scientific journal that decides whether or not a submitted paper is reviewed in the first place."


MA, this is one of the points I've been making that Dan has failed to acknowledge. That there is a subjective biased selection process that determines if a paper is even selected for review in the first place. Strangely Dan complains that this is what the ACP folks are doing, when in fact it is exactly how things are done. How can one complain about things not being "peer reviewed" when the process to determine what is reviewed is driven by ideology, bias, subjectivity and money. The entire system is flawed.

"This whole thing began when you referred to a lack of peer review in relation to the ACP announcement,..."

Of course this is true. But further, since the study has not been released this entire rant of Dan's is based on what he thinks might possibly happen (or not happen) and his assumptions about the ACP. It's not based on substance, because there is (so far) nothing of substance published yet. It's not based on the content or the science or the methodology but simply on assumptions about the character of people Dan knows nothing about.

But instead of any sort of counter to the increasing amount of data provided, what we get from Dan is more copy/paste of his hysterical overblown rhetorical questions.

I guess that whole "Show me the data" thing is just a bit overrated.


"Of course, you're not advocating blind acceptance, Marshall. You AGREE that claims should be scrutinized. What is the term for that..?"

So, we should just accept this accept this systemically flawed, bias and money driven, rife with fraud system, because the only alternative is to "blindly" accept every claim no matter how foolish. Now that makes sense.

Anonymous said...

Two questions (or one question, asked two ways): Do you realize that this is literally and specifically NOT what I've been talking about - this process of magazines opting to publish or not publish articles/reviews?

Do you realize that what I have been speaking of is the notion of NOT blindly accepting claims of "facts" because one person has done research, but that the research should be replicable... Peer review in that sense, do you recognize that this is what I've been speaking of, not the specific review of research in magazines?

~Dan

Craig said...

"Two questions (or one question, asked two ways): Do you realize that this is literally and specifically NOT what I've been talking about - this process of magazines opting to publish or not publish articles/reviews?"

I realize that you are saying those words. I don't think you realize that the publishing of "peer reviewed" material in journals (not magazines) is part and parcel of the process. Further, the fact that the decisions to "review" (not even publish) are made based on the bias of the reviewing organization based on perceived agreement with the reviewing organization.

I realize that any process where there is a fraud rate of 67% is not a healthy effective bias free process.

"Do you realize that what I have been speaking of is the notion of NOT blindly accepting claims of "facts" because one person has done research, but that the research should be replicable... Peer review in that sense, do you recognize that this is what I've been speaking of, not the specific review of research in magazines?"

I now realize that you haven't actually read any of the data I've provided. I suspect that you don't clearly understand the "peer review' process. It's clear that you don't understand the difference between a scientific journal and a magazine, nor do you understand the role of publishing in the process.

The fact that you can ignore fraud, lies, bias, and structural flaws, and pretend as if none of the data affects the process says volumes about your pre commitment to a conclusion despite the data presented.

I really have to say thank you for how you have responded to this. You could not have responded any better as far as I am concerned. You have claimed that you want "data", that you will follow the "data" wherever it leads. You warn against bias. Yet when confronted with evidence of bias, evidence of fraud, evidence of flaws, evidence of misconduct, you blithely ignore that and simply repeat yourself as if that settles everything.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Craig, I don't know how to tell you this other than straight and to the point: You are not understanding my words. You are constructing arguments that are not based on my opinions or what I have said (except, insofar as you are reading other things into my words).

Let me know if it ever sinks in to you that you are arguing against things I've not said and that I don't believe and that I have not advocated.

Craig said...

OK, so now you are not advocating "peer review" as "essential component of the scientific process."?

Are you denying the systemic flaws within the process of "peer review" as it operates in the real world?

Are you denying the scientific evidence that suggests that "peer review" does not serve much useful purpose?

Are you suggesting that all of the data provided showing the fraud and bias inherent in the system are wrong?

Look, I get that actually defending your claims is a bit of a foreign concept for you, but the fact is that you have made basically two broad claims here that you haven't proven. Nor have you provided any counter to the data that backs up your claims.

The two claims you've made.

1. "They are not engaging in science when they forego peer review."
2. "Peer review is an essential component of the scientific process."

Yet have not proven either. To the contrary, I have provided plenty of data to suggest that both of your claims are (at least in the real world) false.

Further, you claim this.

3. "The whole POINT of peer review is to be a safeguard against the fallible human biases and mistakes."

Again no proof. While to the contrary I have provided ample data to suggest that the peer review process is being used to further "human biases" and to promote or ignore "mistakes" in the furtherance of promoting biases. Beyond this you still choose to ignore the significant amount of fraud and purposeful mis-characterizing of data to further financial or political interests.

Feel free to provide data that proves your claims or counters the science I've provided.

Anonymous said...

so now you are not advocating "peer review" as "essential component of the scientific process."?

Indeed, it is. YOU think so, too. You almost certainly do not advocate excepting every claim as if it were a fact. When one does not simply accept claims as facts, one is advocating REVIEW and SCRUTINY of said claims. This is only reasonable.

Are you denying the systemic flaws within the process of "peer review" as it operates in the real world?

No.

Are you denying the scientific evidence that suggests that "peer review" does not serve much useful purpose?

I don't think you have found any evidence that says this.

I have read NO research that says "all scrutiny/reviews of claims are not useful." You have provided no such data and I would say that all reasonable people would agree that such a claim is nonsense. I suspect YOU would agree.

Are you suggesting that all of the data provided showing the fraud and bias inherent in the system are wrong?

I'm suggesting that clearly you are reading INTO the research something that the research has not found to be true. I am suggesting that you almost certainly do not agree that we should abandon all scrutiny of data.

I suspect that you are misunderstanding how I've been using peer review to refer to reasonable scrutiny/review that is part of the scientific process. I suspect that you almost certainly will continue to misunderstand, but I've given it one more try.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

ACCEPTING, not "excepting..." ~Dan

Craig said...

"You almost certainly do not advocate excepting every claim as if it were a fact. When one does not simply accept claims as facts, one is advocating REVIEW and SCRUTINY of said claims."

Yet, no one is making the claim that you claim is being made. You've done this throughout this thread. Instead of reasonable responses to large quantities of data, you've chosen to engage in a series of overblown, hysterical, rhetorical(?) questions which don't even begin to address anything that anyone has actually said. Maybe if you spent more time in the real world, and less in fantasy land things would go better.

"I don't think you have found any evidence that says this."

Then you haven't read what I've provided.

"all scrutiny/reviews of claims are not useful."

Once again, you have masterfully argued against a point that absolutely no one has made. I notice that you do exceedingly well arguing against positions that spring from your imagination, yet markedly less well against positions that others actually articulate.

"I'm suggesting that clearly you are reading INTO the research something that the research has not found to be true."

Really, you deny the 67% retraction for FRAUD rate? You deny the multiple examples of false research going through the "peer review" system? You deny that fact that the same research has been accepted and simultaneously rejected do to bias?

"I suspect that you are misunderstanding how I've been using peer review to refer to reasonable scrutiny/review that is part of the scientific process. I suspect that you almost certainly will continue to misunderstand, but I've given it one more try."

I suspect that you are correct that you are using the term "peer review" in a different sense than it is used by the scientific community and a different sense from those who have studied the systemic flaws in the process. The obvious problem is that I'm compelled to side with the those who know and study the system as it exists not some fanciful idealized preconception of what you would like it to be.



Even after all of this you still can't/won't deal with the fact claims you've made nor with the fact that your complaint against the ACP is simply an attack on their character (ad hom anyone), based on your preconceived notion about what you believe might be the case at some point in the future.

"What? He made a claim and you don't just blindly accept it? You think it should be able to stand up to scrutiny?! What is the term for that...?"

I assume that this is in reference to the last link I posted.

The problem with your response is that it ignores the fact that the paper in question did go through your sanctified peer review process. The process in which you put so much faith failed miserably. People believed the study based on the failed "peer review' process, and as a result people were harmed.

Had you actually read the link you would have found;

"Once upon a time, a scientist named Dr. Andrew Wakefield published in the medical journal The Lancet that he had discovered a link between autism and vaccines."

"After years of controversy and making parents mistrust vaccines, along with collecting $674,000 from lawyers who would benefit from suing vaccine makers, it was discovered he had made the whole thing up. The Lancet publicly apologized and reported that further investigation led to the discovery that he had fabricated everything."

So, please go ahead and support a system of "peer review" that reviews and supports a study that was entirely "fabricated". You go right ahead and defend a system that is rife with fraud (67%),that endorses "fabricated" research , and has actually caused harm to people. I thought in your world harm was a bad thing. I guess that doesn't count when defending your preconceptions.

Anonymous said...

You demonstrate you have no understanding of my words, Craig. Good luck.

Craig said...

OK, if that's the dodge you want to go with that's fine. I quoted your claims, you won't provide evidence, but somehow that's my fault.

You're the one defending something that is steeped in fraud and allows "fabricated" research to get published causing real harm. So you stick with that as long as you want.

Craig said...

You say, "I supported my fact claims.". While I've pointed out at least three you haven't, and now we have a fourth.


"...that is not science."

Again, by all means, support your fact claims.

FYI, this one will be difficult for you since you have literally absolutely no idea what evidence exists or does not exist to support your claim because the actual study hasn't been released yet. I guess if your fail to back up this one, then that's two fact claims shot down in flames.