How important is peer review? How reliable?

[_Jersey Girl]

In this case, peer review on apologetics or counter apologetic research articles and essays?

How important do people think peer review is to determining accuracy? Do folks generally think that a peer reviewed article is trustworthy?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

What are the pitfalls of the peer review process?

[_JustMe]

Without question peer review is seriously important. Some don't have the opportunities to have it with their own materials however. There is very little on the internet that is peer reveiwed. And yes there really is a lot that lacks on the internet. However, to take the stance that unless anything one writes is peer reviewed first before there is anything of value is copping out. There is an enormous amount of solid quality information out there in all areas that have never been peer reviewed, but have truths that are important.

Discussion is important, and in some ways is itself peer review. The idea that unless one publishes, one's writings is junk is a cop out. Discussing the weaknesses and strengths of argument is a far superior way about seeing what is valuable and not valuable.

I will never forget when a virulent anti-Mormon started critiquing one of my essays online. Every single argument he brought out against my article, I then went and corrected, and reposted the updated edition. After he had thoroughly trashed everything he could find, and I thoroughly overhauled the article, he then turned on me and said I was cheating in order to win converts! I mean I couldn't win. Yet I DID win, because he helped me get rid of a lot of weaknesses in that article. To this day he claims I cheat when I am critiqued because I suppress the mistakes or something such as stupid as that. It never ceases to amaze me.

[_Jersey Girl]

JustMe,

I have an LDS friend whom I've offered critique regarding a few essays/articles. I wonder, when you create an essay or article, do you have someone else review it?

Do you have others review your work for accuracy, cogency and fluency?

Do you think that having an "outsider" such as myself review your work would be a plus in your favor?

Since you think that peer review isn't available to you and others like you, how do you work the bugs out?

[_Jersey Girl]

Without question peer review is seriously important. Some don't have the opportunities to have it with their own materials however. There is very little on the internet that is peer reveiwed. And yes there really is a lot that lacks on the internet. However, to take the stance that unless anything one writes is peer reviewed first before there is anything of value is copping out.

I agree with you there and so would supporters of beastie's work.

There is an enormous amount of solid quality information out there in all areas that have never been peer reviewed, but have truths that are important.

Agreed.

Discussion is important, and in some ways is itself peer review. The idea that unless one publishes, one's writings is junk is a cop out. Discussing the weaknesses and strengths of argument is a far superior way about seeing what is valuable and not valuable.

Yes, but the type of serious and thoughtful probing doesn't happen much on a board like this. More attention is given to appearances and off hand remarks, taking pot shots at people instead of actually discussing their work or ideas. It's almost always devolves into a pissing contest of personalities.

I will never forget when a virulent anti-Mormon started critiquing one of my essays online. Every single argument he brought out against my article, I then went and corrected, and reposted the updated edition. After he had thoroughly trashed everything he could find, and I thoroughly overhauled the article, he then turned on me and said I was cheating in order to win converts! I mean I couldn't win. Yet I DID win, because he helped me get rid of a lot of weaknesses in that article. To this day he claims I cheat when I am critiqued because I suppress the mistakes or something such as stupid as that. It never ceases to amaze me.

The critic, in the above description, failed miserably.

Again, see how it devolves into personalities? Character assassination? Mocking? Innuendo?

People canNOT cast off their biases. Porter (collegeterrace) often uses my status as a never (I'm not LDS nor have I ever been) to criticize me on this board however, I think my status is a plus. I freely state what I think (some people don't like that, others appreciate it) without regard to towing a party line or worrying about what someone on my "side" will think of me.

I am my own side.
:-)

[_Joey]

It can be very useful. At a minimum, it should be offered to objective "qualified" peers. If it is not even offered up for peers to review, it is probably suspect to begin with. It should also have enough credibility to attract qualified "peers". If it can't even attract the interest of professional peers, it is probably lacking credibility to start with.

Those who argue that such works "are ignored" to defend their credibility obviously don't have the confidence in such works to request a review from objective, qualified peers in the first place. It is much safer to leave them on the shelves of obscurity than to promote and/or request professional peers to give their opinions.

Of course if such qualified peers continue to ignore such works, even after the author's or proponents request, it is telling of the work from the start.

Hence we have the works of Clark and Sorenson on Book of Mormon historicity still being, per Peterson, completely ignored. And no effort on the part of the authors or proponents to request or submit for peer review.


Great question. Obvious answer.

[_beastie]

I think it depends on the purpose of the writing in question. If the text is meant to suggest a theory of some sort that contradicts what scholars in a specific field assert (such as "there were horses in ancient Mesoamerica", or "there was smelting in ancient Mesoamerica duringn Book of Mormon time periods"), then it really should be submitted for professional peer review to be taken seriously.

But if a writing is simply digesting, reflecting, comparing or analyzing the claims made by others, I don't think it's necessary. In that case, reference to original materials is sufficient, in my opinion.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jersey Girl... :-)

I think it depends.

If I wrote a paper on why I think the moon is made of cheese, most people would not consider reading it before dismissing it.

Similarly, most people quickly dismiss writings that sound nonsensical to their reality or the basic collective knowledge of humankind, (flat earth for example).

Most people do not think a "peer review" is required to come to the conclusion that such a paper is not worth their time.

For example, I have never read all the apologetic work of Scientology but I do dismiss many of their claims without even reading the work. ;-)

Similarly I think many people dismiss the claims (apologetic work) of a historical Book of Mormon because it doesn't fit with the collective human understanding of our world and our human existence.

Having said this, when ideas come forth that may potentially alter our human understanding of existence I think it is a necessary part of the process to have the material/theory/claim reviewed by those who are knowledgeable in the field.

Beastie's work is not a new idea coming forth that will overturn the collective knowledge of our planet. She discusses mainstream and accepted information regarding mesoamerica and the Maya.

OTOH, the Book of Mormon history certainly is at odds with current knowledge.

Just a little FYI, for anyone who has not read Beastie's website... Her essays are basically a summary of an enormous amount of research on the various topics she covers.

I do not recall reading any of Beastie's personal opinions on her site. It is basically a summary of what the experts and scholars (who have been peer reviewed ) currently know.

In other words, anything that will be challenged is not a challenge to Beastie but a challenge to the authors (EXPERTS), whom she quotes.

Of course anyone can go and read the several dozen most well respected books on Mesoamerica to gain a sense of what the scholars and experts say on a given topic. Absolutely this is a great idea. Beastie has her sources clearly available.

For those of us who don't have the inclination to do so, it is nice to have the pertinent information available without spending several years looking for the information.

She has provided a great service to those of us interested in topics concerning Mesoamerica and Mormonism.

~td~

[_JustMe]

The Peer Review Process, the Final Word in Authority and Quality Writing?
http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/20 ... c_con.html

Peer Review and Scientific Consensus
Dr Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, writes:

Journalists, politicians and advocacy groups refer to “peer-reviewed research” and “scientific consensus” as the authoritative last words on controversial matters involving the natural sciences, from climate change to stem-cell research and genetically engineered foods. But many people have an unrealistic view of how the scientific community actually works.
The peer-review process is not, contrary to popular belief, a nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny. Any editor of a peer-reviewed journal who desires to reject or accept a submission can easily do so by choosing appropriate referees.
Unfortunately, personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and irresponsibility are as much part of the scientific world as any other. Peer review cannot ensure that research is
correct in its procedures and conclusions. A part of the work in every discipline – from the physical sciences to economics –consists of correcting previous mistakes.
At any given time, “scientific consensus” may exist about various matters. Over time, however, new interpretations, tests or observations may demolish that consensus. For instance, in the mid-1970s, an apparent scientific consensus existed that our planet was about to enter another Ice Age. Drastic proposals, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over polar icecaps to melt them. and damming the Bering Strait to prevent icy waters from entering the Pacific, were put forth by reputable scientists and seriously considered by the US government.
The truth is that scientific research at the upper echelons occurs within a fairly small world. Leading researchers attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, review one another’s work for funding organizations, and so forth. If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it becomes extremely difficult to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a “top” journal, to acquire a government grant, to receive an invitation to participate in a scientific conference, or even to place your grad students in decent positions.
“Scientific consensus” often emerges because the members of this exclusive club, and those who support them, have too much invested in the reigning ideas to let go. In this context, it behooves bright young scientists not to rock the boat by challenging anything fundamental or dear to the hearts of those who constitute review committees of funders or journals. The terms "peer review" and "scientific consensus" often serve to suggest a process of disinterested neutrality and saintly pursuit of truth. Like every other human endeavour, however, science is conducted by people with the full range of human emotions and motives.
Good rules of thumb for the non-scientist might be the following: government-funded research that is used to justify that government’s policy should be suspect, whether or not it’s peer-reviewed; and the research of scientists who appear at press conferences in the company of politicians or activists whose agendas they are there to support should be suspect, whether or not the work upholds the consensus opinion.

[_solomarineris]

If you already know these guys are certified boneheads when it comes to defending their religion.
Look, any other profession, such as; paleontology, archeology, anthropology, astronomy, literature people can be best pals, but if their peers make mistakes, unverifiable claims, their friends are the first ones throw them into frying pan.

Have you seen FAIR buddies ever contradict each-other?
FAIR can throw Meldrum into cauldron, dare them to do the same to DCP, Tweetness...

Credibility is a rare commodity for these guys.

[_JustMe]

solamarinas

Have you seen FAIR buddies ever contradict each-other?

Ummmmmmm ,lessee.......... oh I know a name is percolating up........ hang on a sec........... oh why ofcourse, YES! Does the name Kevin Graham mean anything to you? Anything at all in relation to yourabove question? Maybe even just a smidgin? A teensy weensy bitsy?