tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post112544395674120858..comments2024-03-28T03:07:38.250-04:00Comments on <center> Ralph the Sacred River </center>: Open Studies, Peer Review, and Kuhnian ParadigmsEdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05188482189638751204noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-1125672423072318682005-09-02T10:47:00.000-04:002005-09-02T10:47:00.000-04:00Thank you for continuing the important discussion ...Thank you for continuing the important discussion on open scholarship and quality control, peer review, etc. I have tagged your post for the <A HREF="http://batsis.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">BATSIS tagging system</A>.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-1125495875324141262005-08-31T09:44:00.000-04:002005-08-31T09:44:00.000-04:00Ed,You are absolutely correct in your assessment o...Ed,<BR/><BR/>You are absolutely correct in your assessment of the situation! I tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to articulate my points concerning the “gate keeping” function of the peer review process. I think that if we did not have this process then “meaningful” scholarship as we know it would cease to exist! I could not imagine trying to read a professional journal without the articles somehow being vetted. This is the standard in the physical sciences (e.g. chemistry, physics, biology) and even other humanities (e.g. history). I can sense the struggle that Prof. West and others are feeling at this time. However, to embrace scholasticism without guidelines, checks, balances, and peer review would be descent into chaos. <BR/><BR/>Best<BR/>JoeDr. Joseph Ray Catheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02140573020952903246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-1125457022415008302005-08-30T22:57:00.000-04:002005-08-30T22:57:00.000-04:00Surely the logic of what you say is that "anyone c...Surely the logic of what you say is that "anyone can play" as long as they play by the rules. Which is where peer review, or some reasonable substitute is needed...<BR/><BR/>But let's never say that this is not a game that anyone (reasonably intelligent and willing to learn) can play, and only allow in the people we share smoke-filled rooms with! I'm with Jim to the extent that he hates the idea of the "guild" becoming/acting like a clique or a gang!Tim Bulkeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07289349880110581469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-1125453601902089412005-08-30T22:00:00.000-04:002005-08-30T22:00:00.000-04:00Thanks for this excellent clarification of the who...Thanks for this excellent clarification of the whole discussion. Your emphasis on the function of <I>wissenschaftlich</I> paradigms is particularly valulable. <BR/><BR/>I remember Michael Polanyi saying somewhere that it is never simply a question of "evidence" when proposals are made that fall wholly outside the basic scientific paradigm. He mentions a guy who had demonstrated (with masses of compelling evidence) that the breeding pattern of rabbits is an integer of Pi; and Polanyi notes that in such a case the amount of evidence is simply irrelvant, since the proposal is entirely meaningless within the scientific paradigm.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-1125448047535198492005-08-30T20:27:00.000-04:002005-08-30T20:27:00.000-04:00I'm with you 100% on this post.I'm with you 100% on this post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com