Should discussions on PF only be limited to peer-reviewed articles?

[Evo]

A member has complained that all scientific references should ONLY be made to articles in peer reviewed journals.

He claims (and this is in reference to P&WA)

"It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals"

Based on P&WA's guidelines this does not apply. But since I am a fair person I will let everyone vote.

Do you want to do away with opinions and links to valid news sources, blogs and websites by reputable sources, etc... and only discuss and link to peer reviewed articles?

It sure will make my life easier.

 

[Danger]

I abstain from voting since I don't participate in this forum, but it seems to me that such a restriction would eliminate any reference to current affairs. Journals are not really published in a timely manner.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I vote for option three: Link to peer reviewed journals and reputable news sources, and opinions can be stated as opinions. Linking to opinions is not allowed.

And of course this only applies to scientific issues. There is no clear black and white in politics.

 

[Evo]

I vote for option three: Link to peer reviewed journals and reputable news sources, and opinions can be stated as opinions. Linking to opinions is not allowed.

I believe that's already in the guidelines, except I believe we allow linking to reputable opinions by reliable sources as long as it is known to be an opinion site. For example the OP Ed sections of WSJ and NY Times are considered ok to link to. Perhaps that should be reinforced.

And yes, this is for scientific opinions. Thanks Ivan.

 

[turbo]

Evo, I love you dearly, but if you think that the next breakthrough can only come from publicly-funded academia (as opposed to the Swiss patent office model), I think you ought to spend the rest of your career making stock picks. The standard model is fraught with problems, and I will be willing to address them here if you wish. Some of them are that the z>6 quasars show no evolution in absolute nor relative metallicities, nor any redshift-related evolution in any and characteristic that the SDSS team could find. Also, since luminosity falls off as a function of the square of the distance, z>6 quasars must be powered by hungry multi-billion solar mass BHs residing in galaxies of trillions of solar masses. Michael Strauss is not an idiot - he is an observational astronomer. At what point must theory comply with observation? We're a bit long on this one...

 

[marlon]

Option 1. This member is taking himself way too serious.

marlon

 

[Astronuc]

Based on P&WA's guidelines this does not apply. But since I am a fair person I will let everyone vote.

Ah, setting an example of democracy.

 

[Anttech]

Ah, setting an example of democracy.

If we had a referendum every time a minority complained our political system would be crippled beyond repair...
:rofl:

 

[russ_watters]

I voted for the first option (along with everyone else)...

I believe that's already in the guidelines, except I believe we allow linking to reputable opinions by reliable sources as long as it is known to be an opinion site. For example the OP Ed sections of WSJ and NY Times are considered ok to link to. Perhaps that should be reinforced.

And yes, this is for scientific opinions. Thanks Ivan.

I had a history prof in high school who told us that until we are working on our phd thesis, we don't have the expertise to form our own opinions independent of an expert's. Every opinion/position we took in a paper had to be supported/argued by an expert. I tend to agree with that position.

It can, of course, be difficult to evaluate what constitutes a "reliable" opinion, though.

 

[Smurf]

as a poli sci student I have to say that this poll is hardly a legitimate use of authority. I will abstain from voting. Also, I'm not a physicist.

 

[russ_watters]

Evo, I love you dearly, but if you think that the next breakthrough can only come from publicly-funded academia (as opposed to the Swiss patent office model), I think you ought to spend the rest of your career making stock picks...

I don't want to derail the thread, but the Einstein-was-a-maverick thing is a real pet peve of mine. Einstein was not a maverick, he was very much a member of the scientific mainstream, just coming out of university physics training. The fact that he wasn't able to find a teaching job does not make him or his theories outside-the-mainstream. The Einstein example actually supports the opposite of what people who use it intend. Great advances in science are far and away more likely to come from "publicly-funded academia" than rogue, untraned laymen working out of their basements. The Skepticism and Debunking forum is littered with the trash of the latter.

 

[BobG]

I voted for the first option (along with everyone else)... I had a history prof in high school who told us that until we are working on our phd thesis, we don't have the expertise to form our own opinions independent of an expert's. Every opinion/position we took in a paper had to be supported/argued by an expert. I tend to agree with that position.

It can, of course, be difficult to evaluate what constitutes a "reliable" opinion, though.

That would be an interesting idea. Using that philosophy:

George Will has the expertise to form his own opinion of world events.
Edward Murrow doesn't.
Bill Kristol does.
Irving Kristol doesn't.
Charles Krauthammer does.
William F Buckley doesn't.
Paul Krugman (NY Times) does.
David Brooks (NY Times) doesn't.

Bill O'Reilley doesn't... but, with a master's degree, at least he's more qualified than ...
Keith Olbermann doesn't.
Chris Matthews doesn't.

Pat Buchanon isn't (no surprise), but neither is...
Tony Snow doesn't.

Of course, all of the above are more qualified than Marilyn Mach Vos Savant, who's a college dropout that publishes a column titled, "Ask Marilyn", where readers ask her questions about science.

 

[mheslep]

I don't want to derail the thread, but the Einstein-was-a-maverick thing is a real pet peve of mine. Einstein was not a maverick, he was very much a member of the scientific mainstream, just coming out of university physics training. The fact that he wasn't able to find a teaching job does not make him or his theories outside-the-mainstream.

Not a maverick? Pls define mainstream. I'm reading Isaacson now and I can't say (so far) that this is the case. In fact Issacson is stuffed with 'screw authority' and 'I love being a rebel' anecdotes. Certainly at the time of creation his theories were well outside 'the mainstream'

The Einstein example actually supports the opposite of what people who use it intend.

How so? Perhaps so if you mean they intend that any crackpot can succeed, even though he can't bothered to seriously study the discipline.

Great advances in science are far and away more likely to come from "publicly-funded academia" than rogue, untrained laymen working out of their basements...

Strawman. The ivory tower of academia is not quite surrounded by a barbarian horde of crack pots. Private funding and industry lies out there too. Bardeen, Shockley at Bell Labs for instance.

 

[Art]

I voted for the first option (along with everyone else)... I had a history prof in high school who told us that until we are working on our phd thesis, we don't have the expertise to form our own opinions independent of an expert's. Every opinion/position we took in a paper had to be supported/argued by an expert. I tend to agree with that position.

It can, of course, be difficult to evaluate what constitutes a "reliable" opinion, though.

It's lucky Bill Gates and Michael Dell didn't know they had no right to an opinion on how to run a business unless they had business qualifications as both dropped out of college without graduating.

 

[BobG]

Great advances in science are far and away more likely to come from "publicly-funded academia" than rogue, untrained laymen working out of their basements...

Strawman. The ivory tower of academia is not quite surrounded by a barbarian horde of crack pots. Private funding and industry lies out there too. Bardeen, Shockley at Bell Labs for instance.

Ironic response. Bardeen and Shockley both had PhDs and worked in a research laboratory, even if privately funded vs. publicly funded academia. Neither were exactly untrained laymen working out of their basements.

And, it is true that advances in science are a lot more likely to come from "academia" than untrained laymen even if you could come up with one or two examples.

 

[Astronuc]

A member wants a change

Will a nickel and dime do? I've got some pennies too!

Or maybe he/she wants quarters?

Is this for the laundromat?

:rofl:

 

[Anttech]

It's lucky Bill Gates and Michael Dell didn't know they had no right to an opinion on how to run a business unless they had business qualifications as both dropped out of college without graduating.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Nobody has the right to an opinion, unless it is funded by some lobby group, has the backing of a major politic party and of course has been scrunitinised by a major press agency and by the ***elite*** of political thought of the day/week

But seriously.. Is this (this internet site) *supposed* to be taken seriously or not?

 

[Anttech]

Ironic response. Bardeen and Shockley both had PhDs and worked in a research laboratory, even if privately funded vs. publicly funded academia. Neither were exactly untrained laymen working out of their basements.

And, it is true that advances in science are a lot more likely to come from "academia" than untrained laymen even if you could come up with one or two examples.

The same could be said about politics, right?? No wait the Greek 2500 years ago were right...

 

[mheslep]

Ironic response. Bardeen and Shockley both had PhDs and worked in a research laboratory, even if privately funded vs. publicly funded academia. Neither were exactly untrained laymen working out of their basements.

Back to the false choice again. I don't say that Einstein or B & S were cranks in the basement. I do say: a) there's a roomy continuum of work conditions and education that contribute to science, though admittedly the peak of the curve is with the top training, good resources, and hard work. b) Regardless of resources and training, many of the big advances were not from researchers considered to be 'main stream' at the time, Einstein exhibit one. c) The 'Phd's and academia' only plea is subject to scrutiny as a justification for increased funding from the public purse.

And, it is true that advances in science are a lot more likely to come from "academia" than untrained laymen even if you could come up with one or two examples.

Again I've never said untrained laymen. And I don't know that is simply 'true' that academia cranks out more useful advances than say industry. With regards to Phd's vs the all the rest since you brought it up, then, yes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kilby" ) that were sans doctorate.

 

[russ_watters]

That would be an interesting idea. Using that philosophy:

[various names]

It wasn't exactly a fully-developed theory. Certainly you could give points for experience too.

 

[russ_watters]

How so? Perhaps so if you mean they intend that any crackpot can succeed, even though he can't bothered to seriously study the discipline.

Not any crackpot, just enough that they should be taken seriously as a group.

Strawman. The ivory tower of academia is not quite surrounded by a barbarian horde of crack pots. Private funding and industry lies out there too. Bardeen, Shockley at Bell Labs for instance.

It isn't a strawman, it was a direct quote: I agree with you that private industry is important too, but the quote I was responding to didn't mention it.

Again I've never said untrained laymen.

No, but I did, and you were responding to me. Speaking of strawmen.

Incidentally, plenty of other strawman and other irrelevant responses I won't comment on...

 

[ShawnD]

A member has complained that all scientific references should ONLY be made to articles in peer reviewed journals.

Sorry to come in late but that idea is just horrible. Doing so means no more links to wikipedia, the world's largest encyclopedia. Another problem is that most journals require a subscription in order to view. A change of the rules would basically mean a stop to all scientific links.

Another problem is that major technologies are not always in scientific journals, because they don't need to be. When you discover something amazing, like alternating current, you immediately take it to the patent office before trying to license or sell it to companies. People don't care how AC works, as long as it works. The company doesn't care how it works, as long as it makes money. You, the inventor, sort of care how it works, but you're not obligated to share it with anybody.

 

[ray b]

There Should Be A Third Option

End The Censorship And Locking
Let The Crackpots Speak
And Shoot Them Down!
And Rare Good Idea Just May Pop Up

Censorship Is Allways Wrong!

 

[Art]

A member has complained that all scientific references should ONLY be made to articles in peer reviewed journals.

It seems the member lacks the courage of his / her own convictions as there are zero votes supporting the suggested amendment or perhaps they couldn't find a peer reviewed paper to support their position

 

[Ki Man]

landslide victory