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 ?

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.

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 said:

Someone sent him some stuff that looked like paint chips which turned out to be paint chips. Really nothing to peer review about it.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

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....

ozeco41 said:

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?

:

Click to expand...

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.