Posted by Meri-Tuuli on March 27, 2007, at 13:57:16
In reply to Re: neighbourhood, posted by Klavot on March 27, 2007, at 9:03:34
I just want to say some things. My other half is a respected research scientist in his particular field of study. His research area is relatively small - he knows alot of his fellow scientists and has published many papers, including several in Science. I used to work in the scientific journals publishing business too - I had to find reviewers and authors etc.
So. I have come to get to know the academic world somewhat. There are several things I want to point out.
1) One study/published paper does not prove anything - okay it might be true but in general, it takes alot of papers reaching the same conclusions to 'prove' something. Papers can be badly written, with pretty trashy science in them, particulary of the lessor known journals, which can be pretty desperate for material. The so called studies can be made up too - or sort of doctored if you know what I mean. Good journals generally vet this sort of stuff out with good reviewers, but again, reviewers work for free, and often the lessor know journals make do with third rate reviewers, which means that papers get through which shouldn't really make it.
2) Just because an academic researcher is on the faculty of a fancy university doesn't mean he's not a quack. In the field my bf works in, there is a well know prof at Harvard, who is considered a complete Quack by the rest of the scientific community - yet to the layman he isn't.
Conversely, just because a researcher doesn't belong to a uni/whatever, doesn't make him/her any less credible or whatever.
And perhaps people who are considered Quacks now, perhaps some of them just have ideas that aren't accepted by the mainstream? Don't most scientific ideas/theories etc start out as relatively Quack-like? I mean, people laughed when they heard that the Earth revolves around the Sun. People laughed at Darwin, etc etc.
And finally, you probably have to consider the background to which the paper is written - is it funded by Big Pharma? Are the researchers reputable? What other papers have they published?
And so on.Just some thoughts.
Kind regards
Meri
poster:Meri-Tuuli
thread:744072
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20070320/msgs/744682.html