Dear Kevin
Ron wrote: >>The article (peer-reviewed) You wrote ># If the article was "peer reviewed" by "Geoengineering Peers", that does not >necessarily mean that ""biochar" is good for soils. It only means that >"biochar" is good for Geoengineering. This reads as if there is some worthy importance attached to the terms themselves. Some call this 'attachment to the kingdom of names'. I think it would be appropriate to point out that having something 'peer reviewed' does not mean the contents are correct, or true, or un-contradictable with current evidence. I review articles that I don't agree with (ie the conclusions) but they are the opinion of the author, not me the reviewer. A different author might look at the same evidence and conclude something different. Peer review is an oft-misunderstood term. If there was ever any need to show that 'peer review' is a process open to manipulation by a small coterie of activists with a common agenda, then the subject of climate and CO2 is one that highlights the problem well. The internet is awash in relevant materials. Let's say Jim Jetter writes a paper on how he tests stoves using the equipment he has available. Let's assume it is peer reviewed. That review is not a stamp of approval on his methods or equipment, it is a review of whether the article is properly written, the data provided and methods given. There are rules. If data and methods are not provided, publication is often withheld until they are. I can write another article describing my own methods and equipment. It too can be peer reviewed. Those reviews are not comments on the worthiness or otherwise of the two methods or equipment choices. The reader is free to form their own opinion. Peer review is not a ‘truth check’ by the anointed, or at least it is not supposed to be. It is often, however, a reality check. A PhD Thesis is a different matter - it is about showing that something new is true and that the degree committee agrees the conclusion has been supported adequately. In a sense it is a high standard of ‘checking’. An article review process is no guarantee that the conclusions are 'correct' any more than using a certain piece of equipment guarantees ‘correct answers’ are given by the user. In the real world the truth of an article or comment stands on its own merits. Many outlandish and incorrect things are contained in peer reviewed articles. They are, after all, reviewed by ones peers. Subsequent articles may contradict them. It is a conversation. Using an outside-the-field reviewer often brings a breath of fresh air into a conversation that can be most helpful. Further, it is quite possible for the most strident of enthusiasts to veer far from reality when using confirmation bias in support of a narrow agenda and there are often enough 'peers' to fuel the process for years. I copy below a short story from the introduction to David Garcia-Andrade's book "A New Look at Infinities" that is relevant to this point. A reality check is a necessary element of all speculative works. Regards Crispin From A New Look at Infinities ∞ Casting Paradox out of Cantor’s Paradise (A Mathematical Exorcism) By David R Garcia-Andrade Introduction A man returns to his car from a business appointment to find one of his tires flat. He gets a car jack, lug wrench, and spare wheel and tire from the trunk of the car, loosens the lug nuts of the wheel, jacks the car up, removes the lug nuts completely, puts them in a small paper cup nearby to make sure none are lost, removes the wheel, and then places the spare wheel and tire on the wheel hub – all done with great pride in his methodical efficiency. Then he accidentally knocks over the paper cup spilling out the lug nuts. The lug nuts roll down through a metal grating into the sewer below. He's suddenly overcome with dismay, frustration and confusion. Not knowing what to do, he sits down on the curb cradling his head in his arms. "Hey, mister!" calls out a voice from a window of the mental hospital just behind him. "Why don't you take one lug nut off of each of the other three wheels and put those on your spare wheel? Then you'll be able to drive to a place where you can get your flat tire fixed and also get some new lug nuts to replace those you've lost." "That's brilliant!" says the businessman with new hope. "Why didn't I think of that? Thanks so much! … What's a smart guy like you doing in a mental hospital?" "I may be crazy," answers the inmate, "but I'm not stupid!" This old joke is possibly a little stale by now. But it conveys a point relevant to the aim of this book. Being intelligent and being sane are two different things. Sanity is about being in touch with reality, about having the foundations of what one thinks and does rooted in reality. Reality is mental reality as well as physical reality. Intelligence can build up beautiful structures of reason on any foundations at all – whether realistic or not. For best results both are required. /…
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
