• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is too exciting for adults to discuss (CLOSED)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
RCSooner1974 said:
Be safe everyone! And let us pray to the Lord that this pandemic will end soon, as well as for all the lives it has affected.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Upvote 0
Buckeneye said:
You bringing the murders sanctioned by multiple churches, in order to suppress the advancement of the scientific method, which was the foundation of questioning their doctrine into this conversation.... why?

That has nothing to do with peer reviews, studies, research, anything. Please arrive at your counter point quickly, thank you.
Click to expand...
So Galileo had nothing to do with studies or research. OK, Sparky. :lol:

Look, I get that you can't around taking any new research claims solely at face value. But to imply that peer reviews are flawless validaters of all research is flat wrong. Lots of "peer reviews" back in the '70s trashed scientists who were claiming (rightly) that there was no coming Ice Age, which is not unlike scientists present day who contradict the Global Warming Climate Change dogma.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
So Galileo had nothing to do with studies or research. OK, Sparky. :lol:

Look, I get that you can't around taking any new research claims solely at face value. But to imply that peer reviews are flawless validaters of all research is flat wrong. Lots of "peer reviews" back in the '70s trashed scientists who were claiming (rightly) that there was no coming Ice Age, which is not unlike scientists present day who contradict the Global Warming Climate Change dogma.
Click to expand...

I'm just curious if you can find anything within my posts that says reviews and continuous research reach conclusions that are beyond reproach...? I'll save you the time - you won't. Hence one of the points to scientific method, adhering to a system of continuous improvement. Your logic is akin to telling your MRI tech to go to hell because we had those who practiced medicine 100+ years ago whom prescribed substances with heroin in it. You'll just throw the whole damn thing away because those in times past we're quite as adept to the profession. Again - a system of continuous improvement.

I just love how you toss out vague references to past scientific minds in correlation to historic events. Then laugh in some droll attempt to convince yourself of some type of intellectual superiority when somebody doesn't follow your meaning. Mostly because half of the parallels you attempt to draw are the opposite of ambiguous and it takes time to process your angle. Mili, I've been on this board going on 13 years. In all that time I can't recall you once utilizing a degree of tact, sarcasm and a dash of humor to the art of being an asshole. You always, and I really mean always without hyperbole, just skip the fun parts in favor of the belligerent style.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
So Galileo had nothing to do with studies or research. OK, Sparky. :lol:

Look, I get that you can't around taking any new research claims solely at face value. But to imply that peer reviews are flawless validaters of all research is flat wrong. Lots of "peer reviews" back in the '70s trashed scientists who were claiming (rightly) that there was no coming Ice Age, which is not unlike scientists present day who contradict the Global Warming Climate Change dogma.
Click to expand...
Peer review is not about the conclusions that are drawn. Jesus people. No one will claim there are no politics in science, there are politics in every field. Peer review is about the design of the experiments, the appropriateness of the methodology used, whether proper controls were utilized, the statistics employed (which is a big one), and whether the data presented support the claims made at the end in the discussion.

Without it, you get Wakefield and his self-conjured vaccines cause autism bullshit, making money for himself playing off the fears of parents who never paid attention in science class.
 
Upvote 0
Bucklion said:
Peer review is not about the conclusions that are drawn. Jesus people. No one will claim there are no politics in science, there are politics in every field. Peer review is about the design of the experiments, the appropriateness of the methodology used, whether proper controls were utilized, the statistics employed (which is a big one), and whether the data presented support the claims made at the end in the discussion.

Without it, you get Wakefield and his self-conjured vaccines cause autism bullshit, making money for himself playing off the fears of parents who never paid attention in science class.
Click to expand...
No one is questioning the foolishness of the conspiracists. Flat earth, moon landings, 9/11, etc. But, when the government is involved, and specific to health related issues, it’s tough to trust the “science.” Food pyramids, cholesterol, EPA....we can go on forever about their chicanery. Don’t you agree?
 
Upvote 0
Bucklion said:
Peer review is not about the conclusions that are drawn. Jesus people. No one will claim there are no politics in science, there are politics in every field. Peer review is about the design of the experiments, the appropriateness of the methodology used, whether proper controls were utilized, the statistics employed (which is a big one), and whether the data presented support the claims made at the end in the discussion.

Without it, you get Wakefield and his self-conjured vaccines cause autism bullshit, making money for himself playing off the fears of parents who never paid attention in science class.
Click to expand...

Not to be pedantic, but there is a lot of research that is conducted every day — very good to very bad — that is not submitted to peer reviewed journals under the name of higher education. University libraries are filled with masters theses and doctoral dissertations that will forever sit on a shelf in the stacks and never be submitted for a peer reviewed journal.

So, let’s separate research, both good and bad, from the process of peer review.

Granted, submission for peer review implies that once accepted for publication, the research has been vetted by other experts within the field before wide dissemination. The purpose of doing so, in essence, is to minimize sending science down wild goose chases by separating the good from the bad.

That said, it is not a necessary condition that peer review be completed for a study, itself, to be of high quality or potentially important. Again, I acknowledge that peer review does increase the likelihood that results are repeatable and use sound methodology. It _is_ a higher standard.

So, what then does that higher standard provide? Among others:
* Minimize chances of hoax / fake science
* Minimize chances of danger to the public in cases of medical research
* Maximize chances that follow up research is focused on a good foundation
* Ensures sound methodology, and agreed upon implications based on the results

Mind you, I have gone through the peer review process a number of times and am a fan of the process, intention and results. I do, however, take issue with some of your implications regarding the necessity for peer review.

1) It seems as though you suggest that peer reviewed results are the only results that are worthy of consideration. And again, while I acknowledge that peer review offers a higher standard prior to dissemination, in many of the cases related to this virus research, results are being offered up without peer review stamps, and without peer review claims, to expedite learnings. In this setting, expedited learnings — even at the risk of those items I have listed — in an effort to turn the tide on the virus could be argued as justification for short circuiting the peer review process. I personally can build a pretty good argument for both sides on that front.

2) Again, to imply that only peer reviewed research is worthy is a fallacy. As a researcher, letting a study sit on my desk for a while before I submit for review does not change the quality of the research. Conversely, if I submit a study for peer review and receive acceptance for publication, it does not automatically change anything that I did in the lab. They are independent events. It only means that a couple of other researchers didn’t disagree with my methods. Peer review did not magically change my methods / design. Again, good / valid research can be conducted having never seen the light of day, let alone peer review.

3) Peer review on its own does not qualify a study as being high quality. There are different journals out there all with varying levels of scrutinization. Tier I refereed journals are great, but let’s not pretend that there aren’t plenty of peer reviewed studies that, based on your qualifications, are pure shit. Believe me, as a stats person who well knows the relationship between Type I / Type II error, power and sample sizes, I promise you that even with the smallest effect sizes, I can construct well designed experiments that will yield significant results that are meaningless. You want examples? Suffice it to say, I know at least one of the editors of this: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-10641-000 and I think that the research is trash... but yup... peer reviewed.

4) While you’ve not commented on it that I’ve seen, and if you have my apologies... but I personally have as much if not greater problems with journalists trying to digest this research and an editor throwing a headline on a summary that is completely misleading. Tell me that after reading this that the headline accurately reflects the information contained in the article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/taraha...ll-but-limited-controlled-trial/#5356e66f4c86

At the end of this, I suspect that we’re likely in a similar position regarding the desire for good science. But ultimately, I’m more skeptical of the peer review process and results as being a stamp of validation as it seems to be suggested here. And certainly question the requirement for peer review given my skepticism of the process at the expense of speed of information dissemination — especially how if the research is bad it will quickly be determined as so with sciences’ lenses so focused on the topic right now.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top