I started this thread with science in the title for a reason.
Interesting that science is being slammed, disparaged and discounted
when the poster disagrees with it, but upheld as the fount of all
truth when it agrees.
What is obvious in the discussion of genetics as the cause of DD is
that "suggests" and "hypothesis" are predominate with no research
proving that conclusion. The data leads that way for the researcher,
but it was not proved.
However, now we have actual studies that show it was not the basis for
DD.
As far as peer review, it all depends on the publication. If it is the
ABJ I respectfully suggest that the door is wide and the acceptance
rate is high compared to most real scientific journals. When I edited
our State newsletter, I read two articles lifted from it in the ABJ
without attribution. So, as I said, the acceptance process is not
stringent if they lift articles from a State newsletter. Flattering,
however.
The real issue is not if an article is peer reviewed, but
scientifically proven. Take cold fusion. It was peer reviewed and
published, but then the real work started. Did it work in other labs?
It did not and that was the end of cold fusion. Dee can have her
papers published, but, as Jim noted, when her queens exhibit AHB
behavior in Florida, it tends to say more than any peer reviewed paper.
So in the case of DD, we had a hypothesis, then an actual study and
the hypothesis was disproved. How many people peer review a hypothesis
is not as important as research that affirms or disproves it.
especially when that research is repeatable in other labs.
Science is not static. It is a continuing process with things being
affirmed and disproved. Most science stands the test, but occasionally
things that were thought to work one way are shown to work another
or not at all. That is the exception, but those are always the cases
that are brought up to show science is not to be believed, even if
they are few in number.
Actually, it was science that showed that it was incorrect, so the
arguer is stuck in an irrational argument. "Science cannot be believed
because science can prove itself wrong."
Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine
****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *
****************************************************
|