- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:52:44 +0000
Secularism. Religious faith is a mighty fine choice for anyone who chooses it. Legislature should be based on pure fact; it should not be used to enforce values from one religion unto an entire nation, many of whom have no cause to believe that legislature holds any value.
For example; Joe Schmo, a good, bible-abiding Christian, is (an entirely fictional) president, and he would not plant two crops in the same field, as his books have taught him. Should President Joe Schmo fight for legislature forbidding all citizens to do this when Fred, who studies agriculture, and has written several peer-reviewed and accredited scientific journals regarding this topic, knows that this practise will not have maximum yield?
Pssft, the problem with peer reviewed science is that it's self aggrandizing.
Maybe if people outside of the field were able to confirm it I'd believe it but self approving sources seem sketchy to me.
Maybe you could explain what is self-aggrandizing about having other professionals of the same sub science reviewing the hypothesis, thesis, and how the study has applied to the thesis, and refusing to accredit work that has a clear bias in funding vs. result, result vs. testing subjects, and testing subjects vs. census results... because I see that as fitting the scientific method.
Because, other people in the same field are saying it's true!
Of course they will, it's their field. xp
I mean, I had peer reviewed science of giant lizard aliens ruling the world secretly and all my fellow peers said it was true! But yet no-one believes it. emotion_donotwant
And all things will have some form of bias to it, but that doesn't discredit the research entirely.
I mean maybe if people of different fields were able to scientifically confirm I'd believe but when you use a self referencing hypothesis, there's a huge potential for error. xp
I do not believe you understand what a `peer-reviewed` is in the context of peer-reviewed journals. The accrediting process is not accrediting the facts being presented, it is accrediting the method by which the researcher actually preformed the study.
But if it's your "peer", of course they're going to be like "oh, of course you're right!"
I mean, you're saying that they'll hold themselves up to those standards, so comparing themselves to these other people who say they hold themselves up to these standards, we should be okay.
But if that other guy who reviewed his information holds himself to a "personal standard", and the guy who's presenting the info supposedly holds himself to a "personal standard", than at what point do we have an outside standard these people are held up to?
If they're just approving each other's works than who's, on the outside, making sure they're right?
"it is accrediting the method by which the researcher actually preformed the study."
Which is exactly my point, it should be accrediting the facts, since this is what science's purpose is.
Also I'm mostly joking.
But still lol