IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 30th May 2016, 02:18 PM   #1
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
James Millette peer review

As many on this forum are aware, the Millette dust study didn't actually get peer reviewed.

If this study had been peer reviewed would anyone actually benefit from it ?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2016, 02:36 PM   #2
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2016, 11:01 PM   #3
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Obviously I can't speak for Jim Millette and I don't know why he did not get the work peer reviewed,

I personally wanted to see a peer review at first and have since changed my mind. I can't see how it would have been of any use in his field of expertise and of been of any benefit to anyone else. I am happy to be corrected if anyone feels I am wrong.

That being said, I do think it was a good idea to have the experiment to clear up the thermite debate.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2016, 12:30 AM   #4
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Someone sent him some stuff that looked like paint chips which turned out to be paint chips. Really nothing to peer review about it.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2016, 12:48 AM   #5
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Someone sent him some stuff that looked like paint chips which turned out to be paint chips. Really nothing to peer review about it.
Very true, although he did already have the dust from his previous work where he identified what was in the dust. I would say beneficial to doctors treating people who inhaled the dust.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2016, 01:00 AM   #6
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
As many on this forum are aware, the Millette dust study didn't actually get peer reviewed.

If this study had been peer reviewed would anyone actually benefit from it ?
what do you mean by "it"? The paper or the peer review? Peer review is a red herring - the paper stands independent of that process - it has been scrutinised to a level beyond what peer review would test. So I doubt that peer review would be of any befit - and what is there to "peer review" as WilliamSeger has already stated concisely?

We give "peer review" too high a status. It is a process in academic and professional publishing which - in essence - decides that the paper is good enough to put into discussion. Nothing more tho' some peer reviews are more rigorous than others.

BUT the real issue as always with these challenges to peer review status or qualifications of an author or claimant is:
"Is the paper valid?" OR
"Is the claim true?"

If a paper is valid or a claim is true it matters zilch whether it was peer reviewed OR the author holds multiple high degrees.

AND - if a claim/paper is false - no possession by the claimant/author of multiple PhDs will make it true.

Putting it in the context of forum discussion that bit of reality is the main reason I will accept and support a true claim from a truther in preference to an opposing false or dishonest claim from a debunker.

I'm rarely surprised when a truther doesn't understand or tells untruths. I prefer better from debunkers...but....

Last edited by ozeco41; 31st May 2016 at 01:06 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2016, 01:39 AM   #7
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
what do you mean by "it"? The paper or the peer review? Peer review is a red herring - the paper stands independent of that process - it has been scrutinised to a level beyond what peer review would test. So I doubt that peer review would be of any befit - and what is there to "peer review" as WilliamSeger has already stated concisely?

:
I agree there is nothing to peer review with the dust study.

Neils Harrit wouldn't even look at it unless it was peer reviewed. This explains a lot in my opinion.

Last edited by Spanx; 31st May 2016 at 02:05 AM.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.