HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Peer Review » Reply #20
In the discussion thread: Peer Review [View all]

Response to TPaine7 (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 09:24 AM

20. I get it. You're going ignore everything I said! Nice!

 

You: Peer review is flawed!
Me: Well, yes, but if you want to ignore a decades long record of peer-reviewed research by dozens of scientists in several different fields and from top research institutions, it's going to take a little more than just "peer-review is flawed"...
You: Peer review is flawed!

And then there's this part:
And the criminology/medicine thing is just silly. Labeling of certain research areas "criminology" an not "medicine" is a very transparent attempt to distract from the fact that the bulk of the research -- both by criminologists and by epidemiologists -- doesn't go the way the NRA wants it to. The real question not whether "doctors should be doing criminology", but rather what set of techniques are most useful for investigating gun violence. And epidemiologists, who have extensive experience conducting various types of observational studies, examining statistical data, etc., without at doubt bring a lot of important tools to the table.

... Most mainstream criminologists have been receptive towards the infusion of new techniques and ideas from the public health community. In fact, there are many examples of successful collaborations between the public health and criminology communities, and there are interdisciplinary departments and graduate programs, so many scholars in the field now have graduate training in both criminology and public health.


Did you miss that? Should I cut and paste it one more time? Will you ignore it again, and repeat the same silly rant about how DOCTORS are different from CRIMINOLOGISTS and only CRIMINOLOGISTS are qualified to research gun violence?

You seem completely unaware of the fact that interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research is not only common and widely accepted, but also is often very productive as people from different fields bring a unique perspective and a new set of techniques. And actually, it's a shame that your political blinders are so severe that you can't appreciate this point. Otherwise, you'd probably find this interesting: you'd google around and find plenty of examples of fruitful collaborations between scientists in different fields (mathematicians applying coding theory to DNA sequences, physicists using models for vibrating particles to study the movements of stock prices, etc.). But instead, your politics require you to stick to the "Me CRIMINOLOGIST! You DOCTOR!" script.


Criticizing Peer Review / It's the Best We Have / Scientifically Illiterate Bloggers / I Don't Distract; I Don't Duck and Weave

Yes, we get it, peer review is flawed? You win! I agree completely! You don't need to repeat it 37 different times.

But if you think the implications of this are thet we should ignore the peer-reviewed research on gun violence, which, I'll repeat yet again, and you'll ignore yet again, comes not only from epidemiologists but from criminologists, economists etc., then you're wrong. "Peer-review is flawed" is not enough of a reason to reject a whole field of scientific research. If it were, then we'd have to throw out the research, not just on "controversial" things like climate and evolution, but also on uncontroversial things like chemistry.

And there's a difference between just one peer-reviewed paper, and a decades-long record of peer-reviewed research. Kleck's DGU study was peer reviewed. So was Lott's study on shall-issue. But then what happened is several other scholars examined the results in more detail, refuted them, and now they're not credible outside of the gun blogs.

And, in our debate, peer review is particularly important since you (and the rest of the pro-gunners here) consistently fail to find any substantive flaws in the research that offends you so much. It's all "meta-criticism": _____ is not a criminologist, but a doctor! The CDC is biased! Joyce-funded studies are invalid! Well, when you're doing meta-criticism, the fact that, by and large, the evidence on one side is peer reviewed, and the evidence from the other is mostly from anonymous gun bloggers, that is a big deal.

An Example of DU Peer Review

Sorry, but Rosenberg did not "announce an anti-scientific war". Really, for someone whose hobby is denying peer-reviewed science, it's a bit surreal for you to claim that one sentence quoted in a news article constitutes "high caliber evidence". Do you think the American Cancer Society is waging and "anti-scientific war on smoking" because they also engage in both advocacy and science? How about the climate scientists who also engage in political advocacy?

And here's the thing. Thanks to the peer review system, one person can't actually corrupt the scientific process very easily, even if he wanted to. That's because in order to produce a record of peer-reviewed studies, you need a lot of other people in on the scam: the scientists doing the research, the journals where it gets published, and the anonymous referees doing the peer review. For example, the oil companies have for years been trying to get anti-global warming studies into peer-reviewed journals and mostly failed. Another example is NCCAM, which provides funding for studies on alternative medicine, things like homeopathy. There are plenty of people who would like to see peer-reviewed studies showing that homeopathy works, but homeopathy does not work, and the peer-reviewed science shows that very clearly.

The reality is that the NRA cutting off funding for political rather than scientific reasons is simply not justified. If bad science is being pushed, the scientific community should make this determination, not a right-wing lobby group with a political agenda. The fact that you are defending the NRA in this may be the best proof yet that you lack even a drop of scientific integrity, and are interested only in the politics here.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 47 replies Author Time Post
TPaine7 Jun 2012 OP
gejohnston Jun 2012 #1
safeinOhio Jun 2012 #2
gejohnston Jun 2012 #3
TPaine7 Jun 2012 #4
safeinOhio Jun 2012 #5
gejohnston Jun 2012 #7
TPaine7 Jun 2012 #8
bongbong Jun 2012 #6
TPaine7 Jun 2012 #9
Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2012 #10
DanTex Jun 2012 #16
Progressive dog Jun 2012 #11
TPaine7 Jun 2012 #12
Progressive dog Jun 2012 #21
TPaine7 Jun 2012 #25
X_Digger Jun 2012 #32
gejohnston Jun 2012 #33
SGMRTDARMY Jun 2012 #13
gejohnston Jun 2012 #14
Progressive dog Jun 2012 #22
ellisonz Jun 2012 #24
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #28
DanTex Jun 2012 #29
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #36
DanTex Jun 2012 #37
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #38
DanTex Jun 2012 #39
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #40
DanTex Jun 2012 #42
gejohnston Jun 2012 #41
gejohnston Jun 2012 #26
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #27
gejohnston Jun 2012 #34
beevul Jun 2012 #15
clffrdjk Jun 2012 #44
DanTex Jun 2012 #17
TPaine7 Jun 2012 #18
LineLineLineReply I get it. You're going ignore everything I said! Nice!
DanTex Jun 2012 #20
ellisonz Jun 2012 #23
TPaine7 Jun 2012 #31
Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2012 #45
TPaine7 Jun 2012 #30
DanTex Jun 2012 #35
TPaine7 Jun 2012 #43
DanTex Jun 2012 #46
TPaine7 Jun 2012 #47
TPaine7 Jun 2012 #19
Please login to view edit histories.