• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

On Peer Reviewed Science

SIY

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
625
Likes
506
Location
Chicago-Milwaukee axis
#2
I assumed that, like most articles of this nature, it would be wildly inaccurate. But (and I say this having been on both sides of the peer review process) I was pleasantly surprised, it's quite good. Many thanks!
 

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
2,276
Likes
793
Location
Australia
#3
I assumed that, like most articles of this nature, it would be wildly inaccurate. But (and I say this having been on both sides of the peer review process) I was pleasantly surprised, it's quite good. Many thanks!
Happy you like it. Some info on the source site:



https://theconversation.com/au Click on Edition Australia in the header for the drop-down showing other country's editions.
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
1,022
Likes
439
#4
I read this recently which puts a somewhat different spin on the same topic.

Interested to hear what the scientists’ here views are on it.
 

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
2,276
Likes
793
Location
Australia
#6
That's a more typical article, not nearly as insightful as the Conversation one.
In fact it reads like some of the contrarian stuff on this forum. More words than substance. :eek::rolleyes:o_O
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
1,320
Likes
467
#7
This Socrates quote holds (forever?):

«I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know».

The biggest mistake, in my view, a scientist in fields outside of mathematics can make is to forget what the letters «ph» in PhD stand for.

Science that is applicable is more about discussing than solid truth. A discussion is dynamic and «truth» has often been a moving target.

Charlatans in scientist’s cloths are everywhere, which this warning from the American Statistical Association from 2016 demonstrates:

http://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/P-ValueStatement.pdf

And we have the same problem in audio. While everyone agrees that signal should be as high as possible and noise as low as possible - to maximize the SNR - in practice people can’t agree on how to measure S and N. So you have different standards. And Babel confusion* as a result. One interesting question is, do smart people take advantage of this confusion to sell sChitt by making measurements that are more noise than signal?

*PS: I like the story of Babel so I thought it worthwhile to copy it here:

«Universal Language, Babel, Confusion
11 Now the whole earth [a]used the same language and [b]the same words. 2 It came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and [c]settled there.3 They said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly.” And they used brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar. 4 They said, “Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” 5 The Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.6 The Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they all have [d]the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be [e]impossible for them. 7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their [f]language, so that they will not understand one another’s [g]speech.” 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. 9 Therefore its name was called [h]Babel, because there the Lordconfused the [i]language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth».
 

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
2,276
Likes
793
Location
Australia
#8
In 50 words or less? :eek:

Bible bibble-babble about Babel has little relevance to audio physics. Medieval disputations re planetary motion, early condemnations about gravitational theory, ditto flat earth denial, alchemists and water diviners, et al, similarly. Tell me how the 'horns of Jericho' rent those walls asunder.

On this forum I expect better.
 
Last edited:

Wayne

Active Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
May 26, 2017
Messages
170
Likes
34
Location
Los Angeles, CA
#9
Regarding the article posted by @Wombat:
I have a science background (Chemistry) and I found the article to be basically accurate. All sources of knowledge should be received with a certain amount of skepticism. Peer review is just one more "filter" that tells the reader that the article has passed some standard of scrutiny; the standard depends on the publishing source.

Keep in mind that "science" is a really a verb. It is a collection of methods for compiling data so that it can be interpreted and examined. There can be errors, faulty assumptions, inaccurate interpretations, etc. The idea/results/theory can be accepted or rejected based on additional information. In a way, it is "Let the buyer beware." As more data is collected on the subject and the results are duplicated and published in responsible journals, the more "credible" the idea/results/theory becomes.

Remember all theories are subject to revision as more data is collected.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
2,103
Likes
840
Location
UK
#10
Does the term "scientific consensus" have any meaning within science?
 

SIY

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
625
Likes
506
Location
Chicago-Milwaukee axis
#11
I think that's more of a term used by nonscientists, especially about politicized things. I don't recall ever using or seeing that term in actual papers.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
1,320
Likes
467
#12
Does the term "scientific consensus" have any meaning within science?
«Scientific consensus» is not a very meaningful term out of context. But in a context where one discusses people searching for «truth», I believe it gives better meaning.

When a field is novel, scientists are not in agreement, right? But as more time is spent on a problem, you may see that a consensus is forming.

In some instances (say social sciences), however, consensus may have been formed without science adding more precision or practical insight.

As a general rule of thumb I’d dare to say that precision increases as scientists have overcome the theorization and commensurability problem. However, even if the theorization and commensurability problem is solved, we may have a situation where precision does not yield practical insight.

In other words: In certain real and mature sciences you’d expect that both the theorization and commensurability problem and the precision problem are solved. Yet, in complex matters only the fool expects both problems to be solved. And the even bigger fool will claim that a field where the two problems (theorization&commensurability problem + precision problem) cannot be solved is garbage, junk and not related to science.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
1,320
Likes
467
#14
IME, the words "scientific consensus" are a signal to put your hand over your wallet.
In mathematics, everyone agrees upon (almost) all of the «traffic rules».

In physics, agreement is pretty broad-based too.

In biology less so.

In social sciences you have multiple set of traffic rules; several standards are being practised at the same time.

In audio: Surprisingly, people can’t agree on measurements and methods!

«Scientific consensus» is not grammatically meaningful. Still, in a context of an ongoing discussion I think the term can be used. Remember, language is not math, and jargon, choice of words may change depending on context.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
2,103
Likes
840
Location
UK
#17
@Cosmik , I asked Google (search term «scientific consensus») and it seems like the term is used extensively, on different areas.

So I wonder why did you ask the question?
As a reviewer, should I take congnizance of the 'consensus' before I start, or simply look at the paper before me? I suppose, being a 'peer', I will already be aware of the consensus..? Should I put that to one side, or apply strong scepticism (bias?) against any attempt to break the consensus?
 
Last edited:

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
1,320
Likes
467
#18
As a reviewer, should I take congnizance of the 'consensus' before I start, or simply look at the paper before me? I suppose, being a 'peer', I will already be aware of the consensus..? Should I put that to one side, or apply strong scepticism (bias?) against any attempt to break the consensus?
It’s good form to start an academic paper with a literature review, so as to clarify where your contribution adds to the literature in the field.

Most academic papers are very specialized, adding just a tiny bit to the total puzzle.

But every scientist is free to take on the existing literature, questioning «collective wisdom» in the field.

Paradigm shifts don’t happen that often. Those who succeed in breaking a paradigm will get their names inscribed in the halls of Valhalla ;)
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
2,103
Likes
840
Location
UK
#19
Those who succeed in breaking a paradigm will get their names inscribed in the halls of Valhalla ;)
Or maybe they have to consider being shunned, ostracised, ruined in their lifetimes. Maybe history will recognise them, or maybe not.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
1,320
Likes
467
#20
Or maybe they have to consider being shunned, ostracised, ruined in their lifetimes. Maybe history will recognise them, or maybe not.
To take on authority has always been frightening. So you’d better be prepared. Most challengers don’t have what it takes, I believe.

Complicatingly, certain areas in science have become politically correct. Which adds to the complexity of being a challenger.

Audio science is not a politically correct area, though audiophilia is certainly an area where being politically correct is expected, cfr. Waldrep case.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Purité Audio Desperate Dealers Forum 20
Purité Audio Desperate Dealers Forum 17

Similar threads

Top Bottom