36 Academic Snobbery and the Journal of Scientific Exploration (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Guest: Dr. Peter Sturrock, on academic snobbery. Hard-core skeptic Dr Clive Wynne, and Ethologist Dr. Marc Bekoff on whether controversial science encounters a
double-standard when published. Sturrock on the legitimacy of the Journal of Scientific

Click here to read more ...

[Venom]

Since I have a long interrest in the UFO phenomena, it was really fun to listen to Sturrock on this episode.

I know a lot more about the UFO phenomena that about parapsychology (by the way, I did my short thesis in psychology about the UFO phenomena, before moving on the field of psychology of religion and working on the question of paranormal beliefs), so I really know that he's wrong on this topic. So Alex comments about how Sturrock is such a "good scientist" were really funny (and made things in perspective. Any scientist whit weird beliefs is a "good scientist" for Alex, and is to take seriously according to him. After the creationist, the dog comunicator, the "Secret" guy, now even the UFO believers are "good scientists" for Alex. It's really "anything goes" if it's not mainstream good science. Only mainstream "good science" is, according to Alex, just not interresting, and of course, because it's mainstream science, obviously completely wrong. ).

Also, I love the part when Alex ask Sturrock if his Journal is good. And guess what... He says is Journal is good!!! Amazing.

What a dum question. I mean you can't ask any Journal editor and expect him to say: "Oh, yes, of course my Journal is pure pseudo-science crap". Alex, what answer did you expect from him, other than "my Journal is great of course (because it's MY Journal).

I'm sure if you ask the editor of the "Answers Research Jornal" (the new creationnist "peer-review Journal"), he's also gonna tell you how great and scientific is his Journal, and how difficult is the peer-review process for his publication...

Answers Research Journal - Creation, Evolution, Scientific Research - Answers Research Journal

The bottom line is: the way Alex is framing the "peer-review process" and the "Journal publication" issue is really simplistic...

(But really entertaining because really funny.)

[Open Mind]

Good to hear there is a round 2 of Skeptiko ...ding...ding ........ oops I mean a Series 2 or Season 2

I liked this update, the humour helps too

A community of open minded skeptics debating the issues, is not just a good idea, it is very necessary to counter stances held by the blind faith of religion and at the other extreme, 'skeptic' disbelief organizations who view acceptance of any anomalous/paranormal phenomena as a danger to science.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

A community of open minded skeptics debating the issues, is not just a good idea, it is very necessary to counter stances held by the blind faith of religion and at the other extreme, 'skeptic' disbelief organizations who view acceptance of any anomalous/paranormal phenomena as a danger to science.

yea, but the inescapable fact is the Skeptical community stifles research... in fact, they are kinda proud of this fact.

Litmus test -- do you think we should make NDE and medium research a funding priority?

[David Bailey]

I didn't really like the humour, partly I guess, because someone coming to this topic raw needs time to realise that the extreme skeptics are unreasonable and inconsistent. Until they reach that point, the humour can appear to be a dismissal of balanced scientific argument.

David

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Venom

I know a lot more about the UFO phenomena that about parapsychology (by the way, I did my short thesis in psychology about the UFO phenomena, before moving on the field of psychology of religion and working on the question of paranormal beliefs), so I really know that he's wrong on this topic.

Specifically wrong on what?

So Alex comments about how Sturrock is such a "good scientist" were really funny (and made things in perspective. Any scientist whit weird beliefs is a "good scientist" for Alex, and is to take seriously according to him. After the creationist, the dog comunicator, the "Secret" guy, now even the UFO believers are "good scientists" for Alex.

Venom, I also heard these interviews, Alex did not endorse anyone or make such claims... he interviewed them. Can you spot the difference?

It's really "anything goes" if it's not mainstream good science. Only mainstream "good science" is, according to Alex, just not interresting, and of course, because it's mainstream science, obviously completely wrong. ).

Venom why do you think only 'mainstream' science is good science? What does science have to fear from properly conducted research into anything? 'Anything' is up for scientific investigation.

Also, I love the part when Alex ask Sturrock if his Journal is good. And guess what... He says is Journal is good!!! Amazing.

What a dum question. I mean you can't ask any Journal editor and expect him to say: "Oh, yes, of course my Journal is pure pseudo-science crap". Alex, what answer did you expect from him, other than "my Journal is great of course (because it's MY Journal).

I'm sure if you ask the editor of the "Answers Research Jornal" (the new creationnist "peer-review Journal"), he's also gonna tell you how great and scientific is his Journal, and how difficult is the peer-review process for his publication...

OK Venom, so let us use other criteria to judge the quality of science and their journals ......


The number involving blind or double-blind methodologies in a range of scientific journals.

Physical sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.) = 0%

Biological Sciences = 0.8%

Medical Sciences = 24.2%

Psychology and Animal Behaviour sciences = 4.9%

Parapsychology and Psychical Research = 85.2%

*Only papers reporting experimental results were included in this survey; theoretical papers and review articles were excluded. All publications appeared from 1996 through 1998 unless otherwise indicated.

Articles and Papers - Scientific Papers - Experimenter Effects - How Widely is Blind Assessment Used in Scientific Research?

[Phronk]

I just want to jump in and say that I really enjoyed the start of Season 2 of Skeptiko. The touches of humour and more polished feel were welcome. I liked the short snippets of interview in this context, but I do hope that the longer in-depth interviews of "Season 1" aren't completely abandoned.


On another note...I'm surprised by the results of Sheldrake's analysis that Open Mind brought up. Although I wouldn't expect as much double blinding in the so-called "hard" sciences (they obviously should be using it as much as anyone else, but they're probably not as aware of the psychological processes that blinding is designed to protect against), I would have expected it to be common in psychology research.

I didn't read the whole article, but it is worth noting that only a handful of journals were chosen to represent each one, and they don't go into much detail about how they were coded as blind or not (i.e., was this research itself blind? Given Sheldrake's obvious biases and the subject matter of the article, I would really hope so, but it doesn't seem to be the case). Still, it's cause for alarm.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

OK Venom, so let us use other criteria to judge the quality of science and their journals ......

The paper your quoting by Sheldrake has been published in which Journal???

How Widely is Blind Assessment Used in Scientific Research? Alternative Therapies 5(3), 88-91, May 1999 by Rupert Sheldrake

Is it that Journal:

Alternative-Therapies

Waaaaaaaaaawwwwww....

Sheldrake will never learn (just quoting "Batman Begins" is sooooo coool ).

Well, his article is now next in my mind with this other one from this "outstanding publication":

AYURVEDIC HERBAL SUPPLEMENTS AS AN ANTIDOTE TO 9/11 TOXICITY

ps: after this post, I'm sure that Alex gonna interview the editor of the "Alternative Therapies" Journal and ask him if he thinks that "alternative medecine" are good alternative for close-minded scientific fact-base medecine. And he'll be delighted to hear: "yes, of course, alternative medecine are a good alternative to scientific medecine".

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Phronk

I just want to jump in and say that I really enjoyed the start of Season 2 of Skeptiko. The touches of humour and more polished feel were welcome. I liked the short snippets of interview in this context, but I do hope that the longer in-depth interviews of "Season 1" aren't completely abandoned.

Thx... and yes I'll still have longer interviews.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Venom

The paper your quoting by Sheldrake has been published in which Journal???



Is it that Journal:

Alternative-Therapies

Waaaaaaaaaawwwwww....

Sheldrake will never learn (just quoting "Batman Begins" is sooooo coool ).

Well, his article is now next in my mind with this other one from this "outstanding publication":





ps: after this post, I'm sure that Alex gonna interview the editor of the "Alternative Therapies" Journal and ask him if he thinks that "alternative medecine" are good alternative for close-minded scientific fact-base medecine. And he'll be delighted to hear: "yes, of course, alternative medecine are a good alternative to scientific medecine".

Try and be friendlier, Venom. Real debate is fine, but this kind of banter make the forum seem unwelcoming.