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. Where did this straw man come from? I made no claim of peer review being unbiased. It should be noted, though, that most of the panel who reviewed the Bellesiles book were quite disappointed to conclude he made most of it up. They had enough personal integrity, however, to publish a distasteful conclusion so there was to that degree of lack of bias. >...... 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. Actually the debunking took the better part of two years even though genealogists, historians, and gun owners knew immediately it was a hoax. Bellesiles is still working at Emery. In my opinion the book harmed the gun grabber cause. >When someone looks at the PhotoForum gallery and comments on an image >there - it's not objective because objectivity itself is a myth. Nonsense. This is your opinion only. By definition objectivity exists. >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 You are entitled to think as you wish and say what you will. Neither will make it true. Dave East Englewood ---------------- Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
