Does rice milk or milk from grain-fed cows emit less methane?

[FlatAssembler]

I published that paper in Valpovački Godišnjak and Regionalne Studije. As far as I know, none of them publish in Czech. Valpovački Godišnjak publishes only in Croatian, and Regionalne Studije publishes in Croatian and Hungarian, but only translates the abstracts to the other language. It does not translate the entire texts. I know that because Franjo Ambruš, another person interested in alternative linguistics (a dentist by profession), translated the abstract of my paper into Hungarian.

My apologies, I meant Croatian, not Czech.

But I’m not so much interested in your paper as I am in accessing an English version of the journals in which it was published.

Boru

Well, like I've said, I think that they don't exist.

Also, why do you think peer review and discrimination based on p-values are not the core of science? What is, then?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

My apologies, I meant Croatian, not Czech.

But I’m not so much interested in your paper as I am in accessing an English version of the journals in which it was published.

Boru

Well, like I've said, I think that they don't exist.

Also, why do you think peer review and discrimination based on p-values are not the core of science? What is, then?

Because science would still exist without peer review or p-values (as it did for thousands of years). Peer review and p-values would not exist without science.

The core of science is investigation, not publishing.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

Well, like I've said, I think that they don't exist.

Also, why do you think peer review and discrimination based on p-values are not the core of science? What is, then?

Because science would still exist without peer review or p-values (as it did for thousands of years). Peer review and p-values would not exist without science.

The core of science is investigation, not publishing.

Boru

Well, I think p-values are the core of modern science. You are right that, for most of the time science has existed, statistics was not advanced enough to allow the calculation of p-values in most cases. That slowed down the progress of science a lot (If Semmelweis was able to calculate the p-values, Levy would not be able to suggest that his observations are a coincidence). But, like I've said, I think it's the core of modern science.

I am not sure how you think peer review did not exist before modern times. You don't think scientists have always been asking other experts "Hey, is this anything?" before publishing something?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Because science would still exist without peer review or p-values (as it did for thousands of years). Peer review and p-values would not exist without science.

The core of science is investigation, not publishing.

Boru

Well, I think p-values are the core of modern science. You are right that, for most of the time science has existed, statistics was not advanced enough to allow the calculation of p-values in most cases. That slowed down the progress of science a lot (If Semmelweis was able to calculate the p-values, Levy would not be able to suggest that his observations are a coincidence). But, like I've said, I think it's the core of modern science.

I am not sure how you think peer review did not exist before modern times. You don't think scientists have always been asking other experts "Hey, is this anything?" before publishing something?

I didn’t say that peer review didn’t exist before modern times. I said science got along for thousands of year without it.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

Well, I think p-values are the core of modern science. You are right that, for most of the time science has existed, statistics was not advanced enough to allow the calculation of p-values in most cases. That slowed down the progress of science a lot (If Semmelweis was able to calculate the p-values, Levy would not be able to suggest that his observations are a coincidence). But, like I've said, I think it's the core of modern science.

I am not sure how you think peer review did not exist before modern times. You don't think scientists have always been asking other experts "Hey, is this anything?" before publishing something?

I didn’t say that peer review didn’t exist before modern times. I said science got along for thousands of year without it.

Boru

What do you mean science was without it?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I didn’t say that peer review didn’t exist before modern times. I said science got along for thousands of year without it.

Boru

What do you mean science was without it?

I mean that the Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Chinese, Egyptians, and various Paleolithic people were able to conduct scientific investigations without a peer review process. Peer review in the modern sense only dates from about the 17th century (although if we stretch the definition a bit, a case could be made for the 9th).

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

What do you mean science was without it?

I mean that the Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Chinese, Egyptians, and various Paleolithic people were able to conduct scientific investigations without a peer review process. Peer review in the modern sense only dates from about the 17th century (although if we stretch the definition a bit, a case could be made for the 9th).

Boru

I don't know what scientific investigations you think occurred at the time of ancient Mesapotamia or Babylon or Egypt, much less in Paleolithic. My point is that scientists have always communicated with other scientists, and have always asked other scientists what they think (to check for obvious errors) before publishing their results.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I mean that the Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Chinese, Egyptians, and various Paleolithic people were able to conduct scientific investigations without a peer review process. Peer review in the modern sense only dates from about the 17th century (although if we stretch the definition a bit, a case could be made for the 9th).

Boru

I don't know what scientific investigations you think occurred at the time of ancient Mesapotamia or Babylon or Egypt, much less in Paleolithic. My point is that scientists have always communicated with other scientists, and have always asked other scientists what they think (to check for obvious errors) before publishing their results.

Who peer reviewed Anaximander? Archimedes? Euclid? Who reviewed the work of the nameless genius who invented the bow and arrow?

Your point is wrong. Flat wrong.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

I don't know what scientific investigations you think occurred at the time of ancient Mesapotamia or Babylon or Egypt, much less in Paleolithic. My point is that scientists have always communicated with other scientists, and have always asked other scientists what they think (to check for obvious errors) before publishing their results.

Who peer reviewed Anaximander? Archimedes? Euclid? Who reviewed the work of the nameless genius who invented the bow and arrow?

Your point is wrong. Flat wrong.

Boru

Seriously, dude? You think Euclid worked alone? You think Euclid did not ask other mathematicians (most of which are presumably unknown today) what they think about his work before publishing it? You think that scientists in ancient times were acting like cranks today, bombarding ignorant people with controversial statetements they don't know how to evaluate?

[HappySkeptic]

Peer review is not the same as communication. Peer review means you don't get to share your ideas before your peers have determined that it is likely free from mistakes, and is providing something new. It is largely about the cost of disseminating information, and the reputation of the journal doing the publication.

Science works perfectly fine by validation or falsification by others after publication. It doesn't require a pre-publication gatekeeper.