😄

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Amen!

Peer review process is broken in all areas of Science and Technology.

Evidence is either misrepresented or not published at all.

Given the age of the "Scientist", it may be an age-appropriate view of the general matter, but it would be a cop-out for everybody serious about the issue.

Oh yeah, holds true for the bicycle engineering field too, to stay on topic.

Let ST peer-review that after you provide the evidence.

Peer review is far from perfect, but throwing it out with the kitchen sink is farrrrr worse.

In fact, this destruction without replacement of peer review is exactly what the far-right establishment hopes to accomplish, as it leaves them free to fill minds with false ideas like 'no such thing as global warmining' that have over 95+% agreement amongst LEGITIMATE scientists who have no conflict of interest (like having 100% of their so called research completely funded by big oil companies.)

Words to my ears.

Not sure where you get that I disapprove of the peer review process?

Fact is, it is broken/rigged for the majority of the influential science that is published.

The term 'peer review' and 'evidence' are hollowed out shells..if that conveys it better.

All legitimate scientists are influenced by political and financial motives (like the rest of the humans in our society). Raw data are not.

One way would be to make data available and mandatory for open peer review, but given the way this option and information flow and segregation seems to develop in our society, I don't have much hope for it.

As opposed to being funded by the government😂😂 😂

That kid had better be careful. After recent events, protesting like that with anti-government views, could easily become a criminal and jail-able offence.
Dangerous and scary times ahead.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

I agree it's not perfect, but there are moves towards making the data behind papers available too. Just look at a data repository like dryad. The problem isn't just that data isn't made available, it's also that people are less willing to put in some effort, people rarely read past headlines or the first paragraph these days. Plus, if the data isn't available, you can always request it at an author. Have you ever done that? Have you ever tried to reproduce the results from a paper?

Peer reviewed science.

To me, there is a tacit acceptance by the scientific community that peer review is a must, but it's not perfect. They accept that it's just the scientific paper explains the situation best, given the available info. Science constantly revises the view of subject, based on ongoing investigation and research.

Perfection is the goal, but best is good enough for now. I'm OK with that.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Actually most innovations in materials science and healthcare come from government funding. In materials, very often new materials and processes are initially created at universities or government labs for space or defense, and then later find their way into more consumer oriented applications.

Great post. Totally agree.
I'm constantly amazed how unscientific "science" is.

''

Oh hell yes. In biology, it's notoriously near-impossible for many (?most?) results.

For math likely more reproducible.

Shoot, in biology I've gotten even the stuff they used shipped to me, and it almost never works they way they claim.

I do agree that the more you learn about how real science is run and published, the more incredibly NONscientific it seems. It's nothing like the dogmatic stuff they feed you in high school.

Yet despite this "unscientific" science, you continue to benefit from modern medicines, watch netflix on a cell phone that magically gets a signal sent halfway across the world in milliseconds, and have ample to eat thanks to modern farming practices. If science as a whole didn't work or peer review was so broken that it did more harm than good, you wouldn't have any of these things, not by a longshot.

Of course Netflix works not because it beams that video halfway across the world in milliseconds but because it has a vast content delivery network that caches the video you are viewing as close as possible.

Excellent. Saw that on Reddit earlier. Made my day.

I love that a young citizen is presenting that and shows confident eyes ..

---

*
___/\___/\___/\___ the s u r f b o a r d of the K u r p f a l z is the r o a d b i k e .. oSo >>

I was making the point that it's peer-reviewed science that allows the Magic of millisecond video delivery that allows you to watch that video. You get rid of peer review completely without an adequate alternative, and no more science as we know it today, despite all its flaws.

It depends greatly on the field of science and the circumstances.
Science is a huge section of human activity. To call it's legitimacy in to question; or worse, write it all off, on the basis of some deficiencies in certain areas is madness.

Psychology - I've got some concerns about test methods and cherry picking of results. Pharmaceuticals - I've got some concerns about cherry picking. Astronomy, physics, etc - I've less concern about data integrity although I'm sure in some areas funding pressures may tempt some. Sports science - I've a lot of concerns, IMO it's not in the same league as the others in terms of professionalism, rigor and oversight but at best has some of the same problems as psychology and pharmaceuticals.

However, regardless of these concerns, there is a lot of legitimate learning happening. There should be a continuous focus on maintaining and improveing integrity within the scientific community, but there is not another more legitimate way to understand the world we live in.

Why is this in the triathlon forum?

Virtually all current funded grants and the ones coming have to have a data dissemination plan to facilitate replication.
You can get pretty much all the data you want/need.

The issue isn't the peer-review process. The issue is that most journals don't really publish a study that replicates what has been done before.
And most grants do not fund projects trying to replicate what was done before.

Get real. His mom wrote that and handed it to him. Please.

And why is this in the triathlon forum?

I agree with your post, largely....


but I'll bite with regard to "the dogmatic stuff they feed you in high school" - name a dogmatic scientific finding in the hard or behavioral sciences that is taught in high school that is not replicable. Maybe my HS experience was different, but my curriculum emphasized progress in science that included disproving previous theories, and the curriculum emphasized what we didn't know, and the further my studies have taken me, the more and more we don't know is emphasized - hence the draw to doing research as a career.

Replication is an issue and I've experienced issues with not being able to replicate procedures in immunology, biomechanics, human evolutionary biology research, and more recently with psychology research, but that is at the tippy-end of research. And that being said, in those instances, I was able to reach out to the original investigator and problem solve the replication issue and resolve the issue. I think we will look back on replication issues as a step on the ladder of scientific progress that pushed us towards better data, better sampling methods such the use of live-streaming data to capture behavior, and the use of more robust statistical, computational and mathematical analyses such as topology applied to the behavioral sciences, beyond Lewin's thought-experiment in the '40's.

Anything we consider sound theory has been replicated, guaranteed. And, top behavioral science journals are stepping up relatively swiftly with regard to empirical papers needing to include replication with separates sets of data and often with separate types of analyses before the paper is published. I see a corrective process taking place.

and why in a triathlon forum... I don't know, it was nice to see Jordan's post. a statement on hope for the youth due to one kid's passion for science via a wry sense of humor (the kid looks 10-12 years old. very reasonable to think he wrote the sign himself). But further, when in 20 years I'm asked where I was on January 20th, 2017 when fascism spoke - [America] Uber Alles, or where I was on January 21st, 2017 when the world responded in the streets, I'd like to think that I won't say, "over on a primarily white and male triathlon forum where we kept our heads down and nothing was said or was presented." So I thank Jordan for a small snippet from the world around us primarily white and male triathletes.

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram