08-22-2008, 06:36 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 541,353
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gekkogecko
... peer review doesn't guarrantee [sic] that something which passes is "good" science, just make it much more likely that it is "good" science …
|
I’ll agree with you about that. As this was published in a peer reviewed journal, it does, of course, place the burden upon you to substantiate why you challenge the interpretation of the data. Remember, the Referees have accepted the recommendations of other scientists that this is a reasonable interpretation of the data.
Quote:
|
… It's pretty much an irrelevant aspect of human interaction …
|
While there are those who would agree with your comment that human breeding behavior [sexual intercourse] is “an irrelevant aspect of human interaction”, I am not a member of that group.
Quote:
|
… A couple of possible reasons: 1. Just some researchers spending grant money so they can spend grant money. Scientists have to eat too, you know. 2. A more nefarious possibility is that the scientists were paid to go looking for "evidence" that supported a hidden agenda ….
|
I presume that you are in a position to substantiate these allusions, or are they mere speculation?
Quote:
|
…When one digs down deep enough, one *usually* finds that the people who paid for the study got the results they were looking for; and when they don't, they find a way to twist the fact in their favor anyway…
|
I’ll agree with you that there are those who force their prejudices and political POV onto the interpretation of experimental data. I doubt that you will be able to produce evidence that the results of experiments published by the Royal Society in general are, and in this instance were predefined by the sources of the funding.
Still, I am not unreasonable. Show me your evidence, and I may be persuaded that you are not mistaken.
__________________
Eudaimonia
|