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 <kerr...@yahoo.com>
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 <rapha...@sccwrp.org> wrote:
From: Raphael Mazor <rapha...@sccwrp.org>
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] "real" versus "fake" peer-reviewed journals
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
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: rapha...@sccwrp.org
