At 11:49 AM 12/15/2002 -0500, you wrote: >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. > > Guys, Just goes to show ya - Dave in E. Englewood has not checked his "facts' either. Again I refer you to: http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html - a place you CAN check the facts. Seems there were a lot of people blinded by bias in this case. In the popular mind academic pubs seem to have the same mystique as photographs. Good scholarship is structured to allow other thinkers to examine its accuracy - peer review. Scholars know that so-called facts are forever open to question. Photographers do the same - that is we present pictures not as documentation of facts but portals for thought. AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book. http://www.panoramacamera.us
