|
|
Post by paleofreak on Jul 22, 2011 18:18:41 GMT
I'm moving my reply here: As far as 'peer review', I think you're in the wrong discipline. History books aren't 'peer reviewed'. (...) 'Peer review' (I believe) applies to the way science theories are vetted. You made a claim: belief as a main cause of the stability of societies. I think this is, (with some limitations) a testable hypothesis. I was not talking about History books. Today, every main scholar discipline is developed in peer-reviewed journals. History has lots of peer-reviewed academic journals where historians submit their works. Unsubstantiated claims or too much speculative ideas don't usually sneak in. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jul 22, 2011 18:21:17 GMT
I'm moving my reply here: As far as 'peer review', I think you're in the wrong discipline. History books aren't 'peer reviewed'. (...) 'Peer review' (I believe) applies to the way science theories are vetted. You made a claim: belief as a main cause of the stability of societies. I think this is, (with some limitations) a testable hypothesis. I was not talking about History books. Today, every main scholar discipline is developed in peer-reviewed journals. History has lots of peer-reviewed academic journals where historians submit their works. Unsubstantiated claims or too much speculative ideas don't usually sneak in. Actually, that stuff sneaks in all the time--that's why the peer-review system came about. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Jul 22, 2011 19:55:27 GMT
I'm moving my reply here: You made a claim: belief as a main cause of the stability of societies. I think this is, (with some limitations) a testable hypothesis. I was not talking about History books. Today, every main scholar discipline is developed in peer-reviewed journals. History has lots of peer-reviewed academic journals where historians submit their works. Unsubstantiated claims or too much speculative ideas don't usually sneak in. Actually, that stuff sneaks in all the time--that's why the peer-review system came about. Yes - it indeed does. Here is a tongue-in-cheek take on one such recent controversy that I could not resist to "clip and save" when I came across it recently in a comment someone left on the subject. You may disagree about the subject and the opinion expressed - but it IS none-the-less witty, sarcastically and caustically witty. PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train. SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both. DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth. CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’ NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way. DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above. CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists. JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Jul 22, 2011 20:25:23 GMT
*historical discussion deleted as being irrelevant to the DTF*
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jul 22, 2011 20:33:15 GMT
Hi. One of the Moderators here.
The last time we had people make generalizations about 'races' and 'religions' they ceased being members. If it is something that you know you shouldn't say--don't say it. On this or another day.
And please don't double post. The front pages changes rapidly enough as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Jul 22, 2011 21:17:26 GMT
Hi. One of the Moderators here. The last time we had people make generalizations about 'races' and 'religions' they ceased being members. If it is something that you know you shouldn't say--don't say it. On this or another day. And please don't double post. The front pages changes rapidly enough as it is. I don't see where I double posted .... but anyhow, these off-topic discussions are something I usually avoid ... sounds like a good policy to follow on the DTF ... Sorry if I "stepped on anyone's toes" ... |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jul 22, 2011 21:18:56 GMT
Hi. One of the Moderators here. The last time we had people make generalizations about 'races' and 'religions' they ceased being members. If it is something that you know you shouldn't say--don't say it. On this or another day. And please don't double post. The front pages changes rapidly enough as it is. I don't see where I double posted .... but anyhow, these off-topic discussions are something I usually avoid ... sounds like a good policy to follow on the DTF ... Sorry if I "stepped on anyone's toes" ... Well, not sure what we would call two posts in a row by the same person... |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jul 22, 2011 22:13:40 GMT
Hi. One of the Moderators here. The last time we had people make generalizations about 'races' and 'religions' they ceased being members. If it is something that you know you shouldn't say--don't say it. On this or another day. And please don't double post. The front pages changes rapidly enough as it is. I don't see where I double posted .... but anyhow, these off-topic discussions are something I usually avoid ... sounds like a good policy to follow on the DTF ... Sorry if I "stepped on anyone's toes" ... You're not stepping on anyones toes. There isn't a policy to avoid certain topics on the forum, at least not in the General section. However, certain topics can degrade from constructive discussion into heated, sometimes nasty, arguments quite quickly. It's the latter we try to avoid. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jul 22, 2011 23:43:53 GMT
I don't see where I double posted .... but anyhow, these off-topic discussions are something I usually avoid ... sounds like a good policy to follow on the DTF ... Sorry if I "stepped on anyone's toes" ... You're not stepping on anyones toes. There isn't a policy to avoid certain topics on the forum, at least not in the General section. However, certain topics can degrade from constructive discussion into heated, sometimes nasty, arguments quite quickly. It's the latter we try to avoid. Just to clarify, my biggest issue was with the last part of an originating statement that is now deleted, so it won't make sense anymore.  |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Jul 23, 2011 0:04:47 GMT
I don't see where I double posted .... but anyhow, these off-topic discussions are something I usually avoid ... sounds like a good policy to follow on the DTF ... Sorry if I "stepped on anyone's toes" ... Well, not sure what we would call two posts in a row by the same person... Thought you were talking about double posting the same post  Yes, I figured out which part of my discussion you had a concern with. Though I left it vague on purpose obviously anyone who follows the news would "get it." In any event, this isn't a history discussion board, so I figured better to get back to the topics at hand ... ... that Papo Ankylosaur still bothers me ... the promo shots were so ... enticing .... its nice enough, but not $19 nice at that (small) size and narrow body ... |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jul 23, 2011 0:08:54 GMT
Hey! The history hypothesis thread is not the appropriate place on this forum for a discussion of dinosaur toys! lol |
|
As far as 'peer review', I think you're in the wrong discipline. History books aren't 'peer reviewed'. (...) 'Peer review' (I believe) applies to the way science theories are vetted.
