Difference between revisions of "Talk:Peer review"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Is peer review any guarentee of correctness?) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
In other words, where does scientific [[due diligence]] begin? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:23, 3 July 2007 (EDT) | In other words, where does scientific [[due diligence]] begin? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:23, 3 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :This is a straw man. Nothing is ever "correct" in science, in the sense you mean. Everything is limited by the accuracy of our measuring devices and our ability to theorize and conceptual the subjects. Having replicable results is crucial in something becoming widely accepted. If something is not replicable, it would likely be disputed, and the original researchers will be able to improve their work. | ||
| + | :Ed, I also suggest you remove that quote from Climateaudit. I can't access the page now at work (it's blocked), but from what I recall, it is '''not''' an objective source. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:27, July 3, 2007
We need to clarify whether peer review means that an article has been certified as correct or whether it just means that it looks plausible enough to be published - and that the real checking begins when scientists attempt to replicate the results.
In other words, where does scientific due diligence begin? --Ed Poor Talk 12:23, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
- This is a straw man. Nothing is ever "correct" in science, in the sense you mean. Everything is limited by the accuracy of our measuring devices and our ability to theorize and conceptual the subjects. Having replicable results is crucial in something becoming widely accepted. If something is not replicable, it would likely be disputed, and the original researchers will be able to improve their work.
- Ed, I also suggest you remove that quote from Climateaudit. I can't access the page now at work (it's blocked), but from what I recall, it is not an objective source. Stryker 12:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)