Posted by: graemebird | December 21, 2008

A Brief Description Of My Thoughts On PEER REVIEW.

Peer review is a crock. Particularly if your peers are a bunch of research-grant-whores and international junketeers. Peer review is NOT part of valid science and never has been.

Peer review is a running sore and a lie. It is something other than what it purports to be. No-one can see all their blind spots and everyone should seek out the conceptual audit of intelligent people. This is in no way what Peer review means. 

Newton having conceptual discussions with Hook is not Peer review. Peer review would seem to be akin to that but it has nothing to do with it. It is not a scientific concept and never could be. Peer review is merely bringing the practices of dark ages Byzantine theology into science. Where peer review begins as a ruling concept then science ends as a reality.



  1. Helping the needy. Welfarism in the modern era. A tragedy.

    • “The Economist also predicted (very slow) recovery next year. Based on what? They keep bringing up the Great Depression and then say it’ll start getting better in 6-12 months. How do they come to this conclusion?
      And where’s all the money that governments are borrowing coming from?”

      You are right of course Adrien. There isn’t going to BE any real recovery until the Paulson uber-Keynesianism comes to an end. There may be a cosmetic recovery insofar as positive GDP figures are concerned. But GDP figures don’t tell us all that much about a recovery.

  2. Try again?

    Okay. No wankerisms. You say: Peer review, as currently advocated, has never been part of authentic science, is not helpful to science, and is in fact anti-science by its nature. Science is about reason and evidence. And applied methodology that can get one closer to the truth. Find the peer review in THAT? Its not there.

    Alright? I thought that peer review was supposed to be about scientists reviewing work with a view to examining the veracity of said work. So say you’ve go something on Qantum Mechanics, you submit it and your peers, those who know something about Qantum Mechanics say well Bob this is right but this is bullshit and so forth.

    That’s what people think peer review is. But you say it isn’t. Trouble is I can’t tell why. It would help if you had examples or showed why the peer review process falls short of its function or something. That’s all.

    • Right. But thats not peer review is it. Because when people say peer review they are usually talking about publication. Getting people to help you check for mistakes, getting the conceptual audit and input from intelligent people, well that might sound like PEER REVIEW but no-one who use the phrase means that when they use it. They are talking about an ideology to do with publication. They are saying publication is more important than reason, logic and scientific evidence. You cannot serve two masters. Either you are going to be a scientist and be a radical for the truth or you are going to screw around. Well Peer Review as an ideology puts the publication ahead of reason and science.

  3. Wow, you’ve been busy. According to enviro-moonbats in your neck of the woods, Christmas causes Global Warming! It’s a hoot and I thought you might enjoy commenting so here’s a link:

  4. Hope you had a wonderful Christmas my friend. 🙂

    • Yes it wasn’t too bad. I shall check these people out in that link.

      • Actually there is no one to argue with on that particular site. All there is for me to do is to be embarrassed by my fellow Australians on this one. What the CSIRO have done is a scandal. They were really such a respected outfit at one stage.



    How would you feel about offering nuclear operators a 20-year tax holiday?

    If the politicians feel that the public doesn’t want to go nuke we could offer incentives to gas turbine operators as an interim measure seeing gas 50% of coal emissions.”

    Thats called “MALINVESTMENT” Cambria you stupid twat. Gas makes sense to use locally. Now, because of years of idiocy we are having to build ships, not with a tank on them, but with their entire hulls the tank. Because this is about the only way to bring the costs of transporting gas down enough.

    What is wrong with Cambria’s analysis. What is wrong is that a half-right policy precribed FOR THE WRONG PROBLEM can never be any good.

    Is the problem that we are selling off our coal paternity too quickly? Being flipplant with our natural resources? If so SAY THAT!!!!!! Then we can get reform in resource allocation. Home-steading and royalties and no taxes for primary production other than the royalties.

    What on earth is the point of promoting a lie THAT YOU FUCKING MORON YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR in order to put across policy that you are not in a position to enact?

    You stupid dumb fucking wop. With no evidence you are claiming that there is a problem with CO2. That we have too much CO2 in the air right now. Anti-science bullshit. The problem is clearly that we have too little. Thats unless you like small children starving.

    You stupid treasonous, endlessly fucking brainless moron. What is the problem that you are addressing you fucking dumb cunt.

    Too much of a simpleton to know that you cannot yourself nuance policy. You are claiming, without evidence that coal owners and shareholders must be punished? Why?

    So the only net result of your terminal stupidity is the promotion of the idea that it is good and proper to restrict coal use.

    Now our resource allocation is such that we are probably selling off too much coal too cheaply to the Chinese. Do you want to do anything about that? No. Instead you are claiming, because you are a dumb cunt, that needs to be endlessly subsidised and bailed out, by your own admission, that there is too much CO2 in the air. Barely enough to grow the plants, but too much in your evidence-free view.

    You are a fuckwit mate. A real fucking dummy.

  6. “On Insiders Andrew Bolt goes to great pains to demonstrate his egoism and the shallowness of his arguments; “I am right, I am always right and if you disagree then you are obviously not only wrong but a fool.”

    But its true Rog. This is a straight-forward prosaic matter. Bolt does his homework. Applies logic to the matter. And if you disagree with him you are probably an idiot like Cambria.

  7. “I don’t think Andrew Bolt performed well this morning – he seemed very angry and didn’t have a strategy to deliver everything he wanted to say. A few bite-sized blurbs were called for.
    “Turnbull bad” – divisive and poor leadership skills
    “Hockey bad” – weak (perhaps unfair on Hockey and Bolt did get this point in)
    “ETS bad” – new information (rather Lenore Taylor was able to portray him as a grumpy non-believer. Andrew didn’t get ClimateGate into the mix until the wrap-up and didn’t provide any background for people unfamilar with the scandal). Rather than repeating ‘green tax’ he should have kept saying ‘$1,100 increase’ for the average household.”

    Sinclair is a fucking idiot. He’s a failed analyst. Sinclair. The point is that there is no evidence for any of this rubbish. Thats the problem. Do you get it yet you fucking idiot?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: