Peer-Review Process Fails Again

[Agonaces of Susa]

The mainstream orthodox scientific establishment, aka the Cult of Consensus, has failed again. This time by publishing work with unrepeatable results. Why are peer-reviewers publishing papers that make claims that are unrepeatable? The answer: because science is a religion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/science/24retraction.html

Linda B. Buck, who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for deciphering the workings of the sense of smell, has retracted two scientific papers after she and her colleagues were unable to repeat the findings.

The retractions, which did not concern the work for which Dr. Buck won the Nobel, were published Thursday on the Web sites of the journals where the papers appeared. One had been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2005, the other in the journal Science in 2006.

“I sincerely apologize for any confusion that its publication may have caused,” Dr. Buck wrote in the retraction of the Science paper.

The retractions follow a separate one, two years ago, of a paper by Dr. Buck that was published in the journal Nature in 2001.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

The publishing scientist retracted her own paper after she could not repeat her own results. That sounds like integrity to me. Everyone forgets to carry the two once in a while.

It would be refreshing if clerics and politicians did the same.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The publishing scientist retracted her own paper after she could not repeat her own results.

Why were her 3 papers published if the results couldn't be repeated?

That sounds like integrity to me.

Unfortunately the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, and Nature do not share her integrity since they didn't even bother to peer-review or check her work before they decided to publish it.

Everyone forgets to carry the two once in a while.

Scientists should know how to add. Shame they don't.

It would be refreshing if clerics and politicians did the same.

Because clerics and politicians are never wrong and never change their minds?

LOL.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So far as I know, no review committee assumes the task of repeating the experiments.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

So far as I know, no review committee assumes the task of repeating the experiments.

Exactly. Therefore they are utterly useless and serve only as Thought Police and agents of thought control.

Book recommendation: George Orwell's 1984.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Oh, look at that, a scientist retracts her own work after she herself fails to replicate her own work. Yep, just another day in the self-regulating, self-improving world we call science.

Sorry, what's the problem again? There was no hoax, no lying, just honesty and integrity. Honestly, AoS, if this is what you have to resort to to try and discredit the entire scientific community, you're... well, you give Christians an ugly name.

It's a good thing your God is a merciful one.

/thread

 

[sandwiches]

Exactly. Therefore they are utterly useless and serve only as Thought Police and agents of thought control.

Book recommendation: George Orwell's 1984.

Who is 'they?'

 

[sfs]

Oh, look at that, a scientist retracts her own work after she herself fails to replicate her own work. Yep, just another day in the self-regulating, self-improving world we call science.

Sorry, what's the problem again? There was no hoax, no lying, just honesty and integrity. Honestly, AoS, if this is what you have to resort to to try and discredit the entire scientific community, you're... well, you give Christians an ugly name.

No lack of integrity by the senior author, certainly. Nobody's saying anything specific, but they're obviously worried about the first author, who was a post-doc at the time the papers were written. Just the fact that they went back and repeated their own experiments means they were concerned about their validity. And three retracted papers centered on the work of a single collaborator is not good.

Fraud does happen in science, albeit rarely. Why a religious person would think that that makes science more like religion is beyond me, however.

 

[Ar Cosc]

No lack of integrity by the senior author, certainly. Nobody's saying anything specific, but they're obviously worried about the first author, who was a post-doc at the time the papers were written. Just the fact that they went back and repeated their own experiments means they were concerned about their validity. And three retracted papers centered on the work of a single collaborator is not good.

Fraud does happen in science, albeit rarely. Why a religious person would think that that makes science more like religion is beyond me, however.

Also, what the reviewers approved is not made clear. If the authors said something like "the results suggest that X conclusion is true", well, they did. If the results are different the next time around, the reviewers have still done their job.

 

[keith99]

And jsut who discovered that the results could not be repeated? The review process for publication is to make sure that things are good enough the raise an issue and to give enough detail that others can try to repeat an experiment. It seems that was done and the problem was revealed.

Only AOS could take a case of the system working and calling it failure.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Only AOS could take a case of the system working and calling it failure.

If only that were true. There are too many out there who prefer to base their opinions of science on talk radio hosts rather than, you know, scientists

 

[AV1611VET]

There are too many out there who prefer to base their opinions of science on talk radio hosts rather than, you know, scientists

Ya -- kinda like asking a bartender what he thinks of laws prohibiting the sale of liquor on Sunday.

 

[Biologist]

She made a mistake that no creationist would: admitting that she was wrong once.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

She made a mistake that no creationist would: admitting that she was wrong once.

ROFL.

Why are you in denial of reality?

The Vatican Admits It Was Wrong . . . to Criticize the Beatles in 1966! | VF Daily | Vanity Fair

The Vatican Admits It Was Wrong . . . to Criticize the Beatles in 1966!

 

[Nathan45]

ROFL.

Why are you in denial of reality?

The Vatican Admits It Was Wrong . . . to Criticize the Beatles in 1966! | VF Daily | Vanity Fair

The Vatican are not creationists. What is your point?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The Vatican are not creationists. What is your point?

LOL.

Have you ever read the Holy Bible?

 

[Flatland]

The answer: because science is a religion.

That's gotta be the single dumbest thing I have ever heard from a creationist. This ranks up there in stupidity along side Kirk Cameron's Crocoduck and Ray Comfort's Bananaman.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

That's gotta be the single dumbest thing I have ever heard from a creationist.

I learned it from an atheist.

Are atheists just as dumb as creationists?

"Religion has prevailed! Science has become religion!" -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 2000

"Science...has adopted the methods of religion." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 2000

 

[Flatland]

I learned it from an atheist.

Are atheists just as dumb as creationists?

"Religion has prevailed! Science has become religion!" -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 2000

"Science...has adopted the methods of religion." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 2000

And how does that prove that science is religion?

 

[Nathan45]

LOL.

Have you ever read the Holy Bible?

Now I remember why i rarely post on crevo anymore.

Good bye and good luck.