Peer review is an important part of empirical research methodology. It enables someone to posit a theory in a journal or other publication, which like minded and similarly qualified people can access and study and be able to then test suppositions contained within said theories.
Least that’s my understanding.
Peer review is especially critical in the physical sciences for obvious reasons. Sure talented amateurs can attempt to post theories etc to said peer reviewed publications but generally speaking unless they meet a base line qualifications they face an uphill battle. Especially if their science is shonky.
You left out the bit that only members of the particular club may submit articles to the scientific journals, but they will be happy that you are still worshipping at the altar of the expert
When a supposition or theory has political ramifications, for example sociological theories, public health, environmental, etc, then it’s even more critically important that theories or suppositions are presented in peer reviewed documents to divorce those making said claims from any perception of bias or ideology or even in some cases to ensure they have appropriate training or skill in the area concerned. After-all why would any one waste time on assessing a theory or supposition if it came from a moron. However – there are notable exceptions. Einstein for example was a patent clerk when some of his big theories were released (though he had at the same time obtained a doctorate for his knowledge of physics around when this occurred).
However let’s not lose sight of the fact that was over a 100 years ago.
Ah the science of today is so infallible isn’t it? You fall into the same trap as Monboit you use the ad hominem instead considering the actual argument. There are lots of people out there who are not members of the ‘club “ who do very well indeed in their fields
Now. Suppose an amateur weighed in to the politically charged debate of climate change, said amateur having no formal qualifications in the field in question. They have a contentious theory, or are attacking established theories, and thus are seeking an audience. Would it be fair to assume that this contentious argument would be best served in a peer reviewed publication like a journal? You’d think so.
As I said before If you are not part of the club you would not get your work published or “peer reviewed” you talk as if anything by any one would be get their stuff up in the “respected “ journals that my friend is utter crap .
If instead it was submitted not to a peer reviewed publication but instead a news periodical that was likewise politically tinged and by its very nature was a known backer of contentious counter theories about a politically charged physical scientific theory would not you assume therefore that this contentious theory was automatically suspect?
I think so.
So For Mikey Capital it is all about having the right “scientific Trappings “ the right wall paper” in the office so to speak rather than what is actually said because NOT ONE THING you have written in criticism of Monckton’s work has done anything other than attack the man rather than what he has actually said.
Yes, playing the man and not the ball is a common counter argument tactic by many in a debate. It’s especially useful when you can’t attack what they are saying on logic. However, this is not a debate. This is science. And if someone is presenting a theory without qualifications or formal training in a physical science field and present it in a periodical that is both not peer reviewed and is politically aligned with elements to whom current scientific theories prove commercially difficult then raising both those points is valid.
So you are saying that an ad hominem is appropriate in these circumstances? And a valid way to counter any argument from someone who is out side the “science club” because if the science in Moncktons work is as dodgy as you claim then logic and the science would have been more than adequate to win the argument.
By and large it’s safe to assume that minimal qualifications are required when someone is acting in a professional capacity, or attempting to debate professionals is always preferred. For example for the most part you would trust a doctor over a layman when it comes to your health (Mikey’s recent experiences aside), the same way you trust an engineer over a layman when it comes to public works, the same way you trust a teacher over a layman when it comes to knowledge of how to instruct.
Gee I did not think that Monckton was acting in any professional capacity he has merely looked at the facts and putting forward a considered opinion . Mikey you are confused . I love your caveat here about doctors sure we may have a preference for those who are trained and “qualified “ but neither training or formal qualifications are necessary for competence in many fields
When someone lacks those qualifications and further more elects to test their armchair theories not against professionals or academics, but in the public arena via a publication that is political and lacks objectivity it is not only acceptable to challenge what they are saying on that basis, it is right to do so.
Mikey you really should not type angry because you would not make your self look too silly by repeating your self as you do here.
Especially considering that a random selection of points raised in a theory were picked apart and shown to be rather pathetic. Basic errors where peers by and large agree they are errors. Let alone pointing out that sources promoted as unbiased were anything but.
So Mikey why are YOU unable to cite where Monckton is wrong? This whole post is just one long ad hominem.
But what the fuck would they know? They’re only experts in their field with between them thousands of degrees and PhDs
Which does not automatically make them right . If they told you that the moon really was made of green cheese would you be arguing so fervently that they must be right because of their “thousands of degrees and PhDs” . Blind faith such as yours in any group of priests is a most un-healthy thing.
Anyway make up your own mind. For the ‘leave him alone! Stop picking on the fact he has no qualifications and that he chose to run his theory in a biased organ and attack the facts (even though they did)’ see Iain’s blog here. For the original debunking of Mr Puzzle and his wacky attacks on basically the common consensus amongst climatologists see here.
There is many a true word spoken in Jest and perhaps you should take your own advice Mikey and consider the arguments and stop thinking that such ad hominem attacks do anything more than devalue your own credibility. Oh but I forgot you blew your credibility away when you got into bed with the trolls.
By the way. I decided not to respond at Iain’s site because, well, what’s the fucking point?
More to the point you lack the courage to actually argue your case and choose instead the sneering ad hominem and supplication at the altar of the expert .Come on Mikey you can do better than that ,especially if, as you claim, you have science on your side.
UPDATE sat nov 18
Mikey says this in the comments of the Post that I deconstruct here;
As for not cruising to respond at your blog I realised some time ago that responding to your posts was an exercise in futility. I find your arguments blinkered, you unable to accept reason, you defend bigots and use of bigoted language, and your politics are abhorent* to me and indeed probably most modern progressive thinking Australians.
But hey that’s my 0.02. I basically decided it’s just not worth it.
*Mate don’t wear the spelling police hat and chide me about “alter/ altar “and then make similar minor errors your self like spelling “abhorrent” with only One “r”. You are hereby demoted to spelling constable fourth class !! :o)
This is despite the fact that Mikey has written three blog posts that specifically refer too things I have written. I invite readers to check out the comments thread to the post in question to see Mikey in full rant mode; see him wear his spelling police hat, see him try to deflect my accurate depiction of his many ad hominem attacks by genuflecting to “Uncle Bruce” see him waste 398 words on a person (moi) who he says is “not worth it”.
Also Mikey has it occurred to you that as a layman (in climate science) Monckton IS publishing in a peer review journal by publishing in an ordinary newspaper. :o)