- #1
Skyhunter
Evo asked in another thread
The short answer is no. The reviewers are human and subject to human bias. Bias is an intrinsic part of human nature. Scientific reviewers are not immune. The peer review process is not perfect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias"
Here is an experiment that will demonstrate this phenomenon.
I am thinking of a rule.
Here are three numbers in a sequence that fit the rule.
2,4,6
Guess the rule and assign a level of confidence to your answer.
Example all even numbers, 50% confidence.
Then write down another 3 number sequence and I will say whether or not it fits my rule. When everyone reaches 100% confidence I will reveal the rule.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2079435&postcount=54I think it is a fair question to ask if the people doing peer review on papers submitted on AGW in major journals are without bias.
The short answer is no. The reviewers are human and subject to human bias. Bias is an intrinsic part of human nature. Scientific reviewers are not immune. The peer review process is not perfect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias"
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.
Here is an experiment that will demonstrate this phenomenon.
I am thinking of a rule.
Here are three numbers in a sequence that fit the rule.
2,4,6
Guess the rule and assign a level of confidence to your answer.
Example all even numbers, 50% confidence.
Then write down another 3 number sequence and I will say whether or not it fits my rule. When everyone reaches 100% confidence I will reveal the rule.
Last edited by a moderator: