Talk:Replication of results

Liberals are creating confusion about replication and peer review. They are saying that if a scientific paper passes peer review, that's all we need. It is Science (with a capital S), and we may immediately make public policy decisions based on it.

We need to distinguish between (1) the anonymous peer review process which articles must go through before journal editors decide to publish a paper, and (2) the larger process whereby other scientists actually check the calculations, data collection techniques, experimental methods and so on. Often this requires that independent teams of scientists conduct the same experiment or a similar one.

Science does not progress by someone saying he got certain results. If no one else can confirm this with their own personal experience, it remains an unfounded claim.

There is much more controversy and debate in science than the (liberal) press would lead us to believe. And I don't think it's totally because of ignorance. Liberals who oppose smoking are well aware of "science" telling us that smoking tobacco is harmless or even beneficial. They point out with indignation that it was other scientists getting contrary results who proved that smoking really is harmful to one's health.

So they understand the process; they understand the idea behind replication. They just choose to ignore the concept when it doesn't support their own foregone conclusions. It's a case of hypocritically accusing one's opponents of hypocrisy! --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:05, 26 November 2008 (EST)