X-Message-Number: 23468
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:23:11 +0100

Subject: Peer-reviewed evaluation (was: Paul Pagnato's funny story, and Ben 
Best)
From: David Stodolsky <>

On Thursday, February 19, 2004, at 02:03  PM, Thomas Donaldson wrote:

> So peer-reviewed evaluation
> doesn't come up to what it should be, in any case.

Peer-reviewed evaluation has its flaws, but it is the foundation of 
science. The role of the scientist didn't exist before anonymous peer 
review became a standard practice.


> Ultimately if you
> wonder about the accuracy of a paper, you may have to repeat the
> experiments or closely read the proofs and think about their meaning.

Yes, but this merely makes it possible for a single error to generate 
an erroneous result.

A single paper is rarely taken to be definitive. This is particularly 
true in the experimental sciences, where many kinds of errors and 
biases can influence results.


Progress in science requires:
:empiricism
:repeatability
:remote criticism.

Peer review captures this last requirement. While enhanced methods can 
improve the review process (see previously posted links), a certain 
critical mass of researchers is required. This too can be reduced by 
improved methods of review, but not eliminated. Thus, there is a social 
requirement for progress in cryonics.


dss

David S. Stodolsky    SpamTo: 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23468