Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): Access denied for user 'najaafm'@'localhost' (using password: NO) in /home/mikethicke/public_html/thebubblechamber.org/wp-content/plugins/easy-contact-forms/easy-contact-forms-database.php on line 152
Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): A link to the server could not be established in /home/mikethicke/public_html/thebubblechamber.org/wp-content/plugins/easy-contact-forms/easy-contact-forms-database.php on line 152 January 2011 – Page 2 – The Bubble Chamber
New Scientist discusses 2010’s “top ten” technological innovations, and Guide to Online Schools ranks top 50 philosophy podcasts.
Nature casts their predictions for scientific development in 2011. Here are last year’s predictions.
Debates over the current viability and effectiveness of the peer review process are not over, as The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a prominent social psychology journal, is set to publish a paper supporting the existence of ESP. Rebuttals that employ more nuanced Bayesian analyses have already been drafted and submitted to the same journal. Here is a link to a New York Times article covering this issue.
Pope Pope Benedict XVI announces that God was behind the big bang, and the universe was not created by chance. He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many questions unanswered.…
Peer review was a popular topic in 2010. Not that it hadn’t been discussed in the media before, but it seems the issue popped up more than ever over the past year. Here, I’ll use three examples among many1 from 2010, which have led to calls for strengthening, “tweaking”, or abolishing the editorial peer review system. The dominant discourses reveal a disconnect both at the level at which peer review is being analyzed and regarding the expectations of the process. Editorial peer review is not a “gold standard”, nor a way of producing scientific knowledge; it is difficult to categorically say whether it “works” or not. It is equally problematic to systematically dismiss editorial peer review as only a basic means of quality control that leaves all judgment to an ad hoc post-peer review process (though this approach is certainly effective under certain circumstances). In order to address concerns about peer review within a specific context, the process itself should be viewed as a set of practices, mainly used to demarcate boundaries (of science as a whole and of individual specialties) and to favour consensus building.
Arsenic, climate and clinical trials…
Following the backlash from the “hype” of NASA’s public relations efforts, there was a major debate over whether the article in question should have published in the first place (or whether it was “worthy” of publication in Science). For others, the problem with this episode, like that of cold fusion 20 years ago, lay in a hasty “passage” to the public sphere. This implicitly means that institutionalized editorial peer review is the solution, not the problem. Other perspectives focused on the self-correcting nature of science, in this case mostly occurring as post-editorial peer review discussions. The blogosphere buzz around this article has indeed been something akin to a sort of extremely “inclusive” form of expanded peer review and is certainly interesting in its own right, especially as one considers the strengths and weaknesses of the “blog” model of peer review. But this “backlash” effect could hardly be considered a model for ensuring scientific accuracy.
See also, for instance: Mark Henderson, British Medical Journal, 340, 2010, which focuses on the “anonymity” of peer review. ↩
Did low-fat diets cause the obesity epidemic? TheNew York Times investigates the history of the current low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet recommended by the American medical and public health policy communities and asks whether Dr. Atkins could have been right all along.…