How does a person decide what is good science?

In the comments section, there is a continuing demand for peer-reviewed articles to “prove” claims (some of which are not actual science claims, but rather reasoning and logic). Rather than continuing to answer in the comments section, I have decided to write a series of posts on how one can evaluate scientific claims. The criteria is not related to “peer-reviewed journal articles written” or other methods generally used by the climate change advocates.

Please be patient. There are other projects I have to complete, so the series may take a bit to produce.


8 comments on “How does a person decide what is good science?

  1. Lazarus–It is not your questions that result in moderation, it is the aggressive tone you use. This comment lacks that tone, so I am letting it go through. If you ask specific questions and address specific topics without name-calling and trying to beat me into submission, you can address these issues. Otherwise, it’s just disruptive to those who do want to discuss the points in the post or the comments.

  2. Skeptikal says:

    I don’t mind waiting for moderation. At least I can comment here… I’ve been blocked from commenting at WatchingTheDeniers.

  3. Tony Duncan says:

    Lazarus, it looks like mine didn’t either 🙂

    • Tony–Your comment just stayed until this morning (I do sleep and I’m the only moderator so it may take a bit sometimes), assuming this is the comment. Otherwise, try resending the original and we’ll see if it lands in moderation again. Thanks.

  4. Lazarus says:

    My posts seem to be a long time in moderation?

    • Your comments did not make it past moderation. If you would prefer, I can post -not approved- when your comments do not pass moderation.
      If you have any questions on this, please email me. Thank you.

      • Lazarus says:

        So asking for an example of where “In the comments section, there is a continuing demand for peer-reviewed articles to “prove” claims (some of which are not actual science claims,” gets censored?

        If asking for an example to support your claims of “continuing demand” gets moderated it just goes to show how barren of actual evidence you beliefs are.

        There is no point in having any debate when your actions contradict your claim of “knowledge of all sides is important in learning and understanding issues”, is not only plainly untrue but being prevented.

  5. james says:

    There are plenty of examples of climate alarmists scientists and their supporters using the peer review system to ‘prove’ their position. An example of the latest is here and here

    Unfortunately as much as climate alarmist may like to think so, peer review is not a gurantee of accuracy, or truth. At the same time, publishing without peer review, does not mean something isn’t robust.

    It may surprise those within the walls of academia to discover that much of the world’s great strides in science and development actually happens without following the peer review process. Think of all the commercially sensitive and defence developments which happen in secret without the benefit of peer review and publication in journals until well after the event.

    We have seen through the publication of the Climate Gate emails that the peer review process can be manipulated to push an ideology and to supress competing ideas and theories. I am not saying discount all peer reviewed publications or course, I’m just saying, it is not the be all and end all.

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s