At 10:50 AM 12/15/2002 +0000, you wrote: > >> Nonsense! Peer review is an accepted and valuable practice for the >> validation of scientific, academic and artistic works. For just one >> example, this summer peer review exposed the Bancroft Prize winner, >Michael >> Bellesiles, as a liar and charlatan. >> >Dave > > >Great example btw ... >Actually, in a way it exposes why peer review, in the sense of it >being unbiased, is indeed impossible. > >Would he have won the prize if his findings were not favourable to the >liberals? >Would Bellesiles have been exposed had his conclusions had not >threatened the gun lobby (fabricated or not)? > >The "Lobbysist" culture is as old as history. When the earth was flat >then you had better get ALL your facts straight before you said >otherwise. I suspect he was debunked so quickly because his >conclusions were too "dangerous" for some to accept rather than out of >any quest for absolute truth. > >When someone looks at the PhotoForum gallery and comments on an image >there - it's not objective because objectivity itself is a myth. >Does that mean though that comments are worthless or that the act of >commenting is a waste of time? > >I think so, but then I would say that, wouldn't I ;o) > >Q > > >"A fool asks questions which can have no answer" > All, Unless you are guilty, never ask for a jury trial. BTW if you are curious about the Belliseles thing it's all here: http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book. http://www.panoramacamera.us
