richlyon wrote:
prof beard wrote:
you have shifted your arguments from peer-review, to quantitative approaches, to logic in a somewhat "convenient" manner
Hello Proff. Cut me some slack, as they say. There is one of me and about 400 of you. What to you is a shift of arguments is to me an attempt to steer a course through a kaleidoscope of opinions while trying to adhere roughly to the thread topic. My apologies if what I think that constitutes differs from yours, but I can't imagine you expect me to answer all of the points made to me in equal detail.
OK, I'll accept this in the spirit intended
richlyon wrote:
As to my gobbledygook, well shit that's just the way it gets typed, I suppose. Often, when I'm trying to reread something I've typed, I find standing up helps.
Whilst I agree that we all make mistakes when typing on-line, (I know I mis-spell and make also make errors in punctuation). The examples I gave seemed so at odds with your normally clear (despite typos) posts that I was querying their intent. You have clarified the one I quoted from a response to me (see below) but I really would like to know what the second one was intented to mean?
richlyon wrote:
And as for not replying to your last (excellent) post, well I got shutdown, remember? (and I've a hangover from last night's excellent New Year celebration).
prof beard wrote:
You have not however, answered the points I made about the neccessary place of qualitative methods (widely used in respectable academic work)
I genuinely thought I had. There is nothing that I disagree with, and in fact you state it far better than I have when you point out that
"What the peer-review process does achieve is ensuring that references cited are valid and pertinent, that methods employed are understood, and that conclusions are justifiable. But - justifiable does not necessarily mean correct - the conclusions of much research are hotly contended - merely that it is reasonable to draw them from the arguments employed (other conclusions may also be reasonably drawn)."My (complementary) point I thought followed directly from yours, that until you have ensured that the arguments employed support the drawing of
any conclusions, the nature of those conclusions and the likelihood of any particular peer review of them being biased, is irrelevant.
What you have said above is fair, but I still contend that your posts have, in tone, devalued qualitiative methods - indeed one post of your's implied they were not suitable in peer-reviewed publications. Also, Paul has responded quite postively to my criticism of the piece in question - you could give him that at least? Also see mynext point below...
richlyon wrote:
However, the issue, surely, is not whether peer review is perfect. It's about whether it is more or less perfect than self-review? My question about the limits of what can be assured by "open review" on an owner-occupied website attempts to explore that issue.
I think I have agreed with you already on one this. What you have NOT refuted (or conceded) is my assertion of the critical place of public (not fora like this) debate in attempting to change policy (and also the point made by others that much government publication seems singularly lacking in peer-review, but is still held up as "expert")
richlyon wrote:
[re. my gobbledegook on roadside corpses. I've just re-read your post. Your omission of a comma between "You mean" and "I hope", an absence of any quotes, and a complete misreading of what you said on my part lead me to think you were being snarky, which prompted (unforgivably) a bit of snarkiness from me. Not my finest hour. What can I say.]
Fair enough - thanks - sorry about the missing comma! (I was trying to make sure I understood your point - and making a small one of my own about how the language you had used lacked the precision you seem to have been expecting from others!)
I'd just like to add that I won't be able to keep up my rate of posts for the rest of the week - I have an academic paper to write (in my own field) - for peer-review of course...