|
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. |
30th May 2016, 02:18 PM | #1 |
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 ? |
30th May 2016, 02:36 PM | #2 |
Penultimate Amazing
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) |
|
30th May 2016, 11:01 PM | #3 |
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. |
31st May 2016, 12:30 AM | #4 |
Philosopher
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.
|
31st May 2016, 12:48 AM | #5 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
31st May 2016, 01:00 AM | #6 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
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.... |
31st May 2016, 01:39 AM | #7 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|