Talk:Peer review

Extremists?!

Why apply guidelines on extremists when Richard Dawkins is not generally considered an extremist?37.250.119.148 05:34, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

The request for a tidy up/format/images/direction is not because Dawkins is an extremist but to see if there is any comedic potential in the article. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:31, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

I was referring not to your original request, but to SPIKE's ICU classification which does refer to extremist guidelines. It would be better to restore your maintenance tag at the expense of SPIKE's newer ICU tag.37.250.119.148 10:08, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

I think an article about Peer review is fine, moving to the issue about Richard Dawkins and his previous comments and oil companies looks to me like an awkward jump. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 10:26, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins and the oil companies are now gone.37.250.119.148 10:33, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

I think they can be used as examples within the article's general thread. The issue of Peer review (scientists being able to replicate what others say can happen) is something you can't do with say a religious doctrine or someone saying 'I know I am Always Right'. Do you remember the issue of 'Cold Fusion' or a neutrino being faster that the Speed of Light? No one could replicate either experiments. So, to sum up. I like it that you are tackling an interesting subject. Other writers here may have some ideas to contribute as well. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 10:52, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

Replicability is not the same thing as the institution of peer review. Multiple people with the same "we know we are collectively right but some of us may be individually wrong" may create their own reviewery distinct from another equally closed reviewery. Replicability, on the other hand, is independent of institutions.37.250.119.148 11:08, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

I referred you to CoW#Extremists not because there are actual extremists here but because your article reads as though you are trying to communicate a political point rather than entertain the reader; for example, using complicated polemic to make a specific point about the self-interestedness of the oil companies. Above you state the premise of an excellent page: that two sides are at war with the weapon of self-righteousness but both are in fact self-interested. Just keep it light! and focus on entertaining the reader, not proving your position (nor especially, by the way, guiding the reader to external evidence to reinforce your position, not that you did). I can imagine how this plays out: a premise much more absurd than cold fusion (Perpetual Motion is always available), an observation that "surprisingly" cannot be repeated by anyone else, and Peer Review then approving of the research regardless. Also, if you would pick a user name, you could upload suitable photos. Spıke 🎙️11:47 24-Jul-15

Perpetual Motion story added. Should the "History" section be removed?2.68.148.56 12:33, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

Your addition shows talent but it does not read like part of an encyclopedia article. In fact, it reads like a news release. Now, we have a place for stuff like that, but for that purpose, it would need to relate to something in the actual news. Repeating, our two weeks of turmoil (ending in almost everyone being frozen off the site) seems to have ended, and you guys should now be able to pick user names. Spıke 🎙️13:24 24-Jul-15

Now it's present tense.2.68.148.56 05:47, July 25, 2015 (UTC)