I think the best way to help students to get criteria to decide when a journal or article is non scientific (or even "fake") is to give them a solid (but please amenable!) background of the basis of Phylosophy of Science and the difference between Science, Arts and Religion before sending them to read peer journals. It is not necessary to impose Science over Religion, just to make them to understand that religion is a kind of knowledge based on faith and dogmas while Science is testable. Thus, if something non-testable is written in a "peer journal", it is a fake since it pretends to be science while being pseudo-science. Including Art is nice because, as well as Science, Art implies discipline and creativity but the difference is that artists are encouraged to cultivate their own feelings while Science tries to understand the real world in a testable (not faithful way). Arts are charismatic since they help each individual to explore him/herself instead of following dogmas; nice way to escape from the nails of religion, helping students to keep the mind open to Science. When someone knows the difference between Scientific and Religious Knowledge it is easier to read an article and think "This one is science, this one is religious and this other is opinion". Shame that it is necessary to us to talk about such a topic 200 years after the birth of Darwin. But if we have to do it, we have to do it!
Hope it helps. Edgardo I. Garrido-Pérez Goettingen University, Germany > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:22:13 -0500 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "real" versus "fake" peer-reviewed journals > To: [email protected] > > Martin, > > This all sounds good in the abstract, but it's beyond me how we could do > better than peer-review to establish which science is done well and which is > not. No matter how reliable a system is, it's always easy to say "we should > do better than this." But what would you propose to improve on our current > systme of vetting scientific research? > > You don't have to get very far from your own field to run into research you > aren't equipped to validate. Most pollination biologists probably aren't > prepared to properly assess the quality of research on insect cognition, for > example, so they have to rely on other scientists to evaluate the research > for them. To what better authority could they possibly appeal? > > I would certainly not want people who don't "have faith" in the scientific > method deciding which papers can and cannot be published. > > Jim Crants > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Martin Meiss <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I find this exchange very interesting, and it points up a major > > problem caused by the burgeoning of scientific knowledge and the > > limitations > > of the individual. As scientists, we believe (have faith) that the > > scientific method is the best means of arriving at truth about the natural > > world. Even if the method is error-prone in some ways, and is subject to > > various forms of manipulation, it is historically self-correcting. > > The problem is that no individual has enough time, knowledge, and > > background to know if the scientific method is being properly by all those > > who claim to be doing so. We hear someone cite a suspicious-sounding fact > > (i.e., a fact that doesn't correspond to our perhaps-erroneous > > understanding), and we want to know if it is based on real science or > > pseudo-science. So what to we do? We ask if the supporting research > > appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (i.e., has this been vetted by the > > old-boys network?). This sounds a little like the response of the people > > who first heard the teachings of Jesus. They didn't ask "How do we know > > this is true?" They asked "By whose authority do you speak?" > > These two questions should never be confused, yet the questions "Did > > it appear in a peer-reviewed journal" and "Is that journal REALLY a > > peer-reviewed journal?" skate perilously close to this confusion. We are > > looking for a short-cut, for something we can trust so we don't have to be > > experts in every branch of science and read every journal ourselves. I > > don't know the answer to this dilemma, and perhaps there is none, but we > > should be looking for something better than "Does this have the stamp of > > approval of people who think like I do?" We should be looking for > > something > > that is not just an encodement of "Does this violate the doctrine of my > > faith?" The pragmatic necessity of letting others decide whether certain > > research is valid should be no excuse for relaxing our personal vigilance > > and skepticism. Otherwise, we fall into the same trap that ensnares the > > religionists who are trying to undermine science because it threatens their > > faith. > > > > Martin M. Meiss > > > > > > 2009/7/8 Kerry Griffis-Kyle <[email protected]> > > > > > I am teaching a Sophomore/Junior level evolution course at Texas Tech > > > (where a significant proportion of my students believe evolution is > > > anti-God). One of the activities I have them do is take three > > creationist > > > claims about science and use the peer-reviewed scientific literature to > > find > > > evidence to support or refute the claim. It makes them really think > > about > > > the issues; and if they follow the directions, it does a better job than > > any > > > of my classroom activities convincing them that the claims against > > evolution > > > are just a bunch of hooey. Unfortunately, there are journals claiming > > > peer-review status that are not. It can be very frustrating. > > > > > > Like Raphael, I also wonder if there is a good source the students can > > use > > > as a rubric for telling if a journal article is peer-reviewed. > > > > > > ***************************** > > > Kerry Griffis-Kyle > > > Assistant Professor > > > Department of Natural Resources Management > > > Texas Tech University > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Raphael Mazor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Raphael Mazor <[email protected]> > > > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] "real" versus "fake" peer-reviewed journals > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 5:03 PM > > > > > > > > > I've noticed a number of cases lately where groups with a strong > > political > > > agenda (on topics like climate change, evolution, stem cells, or human > > > health) cite "peer reviewed" studies in journals that are essentially > > > fabricated for the purpose of advancing a specific viewpoint. > > > > > > What's a good way to tell when a journal is baloney? Of course, it's easy > > > for a scientist in his or her own field to know when a journal is a sham, > > > but how can we let others know it's obviously fake? For example, are only > > > "real" journals included on major abstract indexing services? > > > > > > -- <><><><><><><><><> > > > Raphael D. Mazor > > > Biologist > > > Southern California Coastal Water Research Project > > > 3535 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 110 > > > Costa Mesa, CA 92626 > > > > > > Tel: 714-755-3235 > > > Fax: 714-755-3299 > > > Email: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > James Crants, PhD > Scientist, University of Minnesota > Agronomy and Plant Genetics > Cell: (734) 474-7478 _________________________________________________________________ Show them the way! Add maps and directions to your party invites. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/events.aspx
