On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Matthew Jadud <mja...@allegheny.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:36, Luis Ibanez <luis.iba...@kitware.com> wrote: >>> 1. The quote extrapolates from research that does not actually address >>> the claims made. >>> >>> 2. The research itself makes claims that, quite possibly, the >>> underlying data does not support. > >> Your opinions in items (1) and (2) in your email are as >> arbitrary as the opinions expressed in the post that they >> refer to, and are actually typical of what reviewers >> routinely do in today's peer-review process: to express >> opinions that are not based on factual data, nor based >> on reproducible experiments. > >> For anyone interested in the real scientific method and in >> epistemology, I warmly recommend the reading of the >> following books: > > Thank you, Louis. You seem to have dismissed the entire thread, and > instead have suggested we go read your favorite philosopher of > science. Do all of your own publications adhere to a Popperian > standard of excellence, or do you slum it with the rest of us on > occasion? > > Matt > -----------------------------------------------------
Dear Matt, Your defensive question is quite enticing, but doesn't dismiss the fact that in order to invoke the benefits of the scientific method you must first learn about it. Popper's book is not that long, I'm sure the you will enjoy the reading and will get to appreciate the practice of the scientific method. In the meantime, please do not mislead others on thinking that the current decadent peer-review publishing system is in any way related to the rigor of the scientific method. This talk from Keith Baggerly at MD. Anderson: http://videolectures.net/cancerbioinformatics2010_baggerly_irrh/ will hopefully help to illustrate the differences. The topic is more widely discussed here: http://blog.stodden.net/2011/03/19/a-case-study-in-the-need-for-open-data-and-code/ "This is the work that resulted in the termination of clinical trials at Duke last November and the resignation of Anil Potti" The same case was discussed recently in The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21528593 ... all this as a result of the current weak practices of peer-review and how they misrepresent science... -- If you want to see a real scientific journal, you are welcome to take a look at the Insight Journal: http://www.insight-journal.org/ You will find my papers there, along with the source code, data and parameters that make them reproducible. Please let me know if you find any issues when you attempt to replicate them. I will appreciate your observations and will be happy to fix any problem that you may encounter. Best, Luis ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Talk is Cheap, Show me the Code" -- Linus Torvals. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ tos mailing list tos@teachingopensource.org http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
