Crispin and list: 1. I write to defend my inclusion of the term “peer review” - with my “No” answers to two questions below
2. I take no exception to anything you wrote below. Peer review guarantees nothing. But I maintain it improves the odds. 3. Question #1: I would in almost all cases trust more (not trust wholly [this is a question of risks/odds]) material I read in a peer-reviewed article than information I knew had no peer review. Is that illogical? RWL answer: No - not illogical. 4. Question #2: The IPCC reports say they only use citations that have been peer-reviewed. Is that too strict a requirement? RWL answer: No. (The odds of getting it right have gone way up by using only material that has been peer-reviewed) Ron On Jan 6, 2014, at 3:56 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
