Re: [compost_tea] Thoughts on peer-review

From: David Anderson <squtch_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:30:33 -0800
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:05:21 -0900, Jeff Lowenfels <jeff_at_gardener.com> wrote:
> No matter what you think your results might have been, they have to be
> repeatable to be useful.

No they don't.

Or more precisely, everything is repeatable, we just may not know how
to precisely repeat it.

"Repeatable" and "repeated" are different things. "Non-repeatable"
*is* useful. "Repeatable" is more useful. "Fully replicated and
understood" is the most useful.

Just because you do not understand how a data point happened, does not
mean you should remove that data point.

> This is part of the review process,
> repetition.

But review is one of the last steps in the process. And repitition is
not necessarily part of the review process.

The review process is a lot like ISO 9000 certification. It is much
more a review of your process than a review of the accuracy of your
data. Did you make any leaps of logic that did not have any basis
given the data.

> If we had simply claimed
> it without being able to replicate it with our own material and have
> others do it with theirs, we would only be putting a hole in your
> bucket and draining some of the knowledge out....IMHO.

But if you claimed it, after doing it one time and seeing the results,
would you be incorrect?

Even if you never did it, not even one time, and it is only a theory,
it does not take away from the fact that it works. Even if all you
have is a theory, you can get that theory peer-reviewed and published.
Even if that theory is almost certainly wrong by current thinking, if
you follow correct process, you can get it published.

It isn't the publishing or even the peer-review and repeatability that
makes something true or useful. it is the fact that it is true or
useful that makes it true or useful.

The first person that got rid of a toothache by chewing on a willow
twig obviously found it very useful. When he tried it again but with a
maple twig, and it did not work,  that does not make that first
observation useless.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Wed Jan 19 2005 - 15:05:47 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:44 EST