(August 29, 2018 at 9:15 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:(August 29, 2018 at 7:59 am)alpha male Wrote: https://news.brown.edu/articles/2018/08/gender
As it made it through peer review, the charges on methodology are BS. Or, peer review is BS. Take your pick.
I choose false dichotomy for the win. Peer review can be ineffective in certain cases without indicting the usefulness of peer review in general. The problem is you are viewing peer review is some sort of guarantor of specific qualities in published research. It is not. It is simply a tool that is applied toward the end of establishing scientific truth. As is post peer review analysis and commentary. As noted, review of scientific research doesn't end once a paper is published. There have been papers that have been withdrawn after publication because of fraudulent data or results. That the original peer review did not catch these cases suggests only that peer review is not 100% effective, but no one is claiming that it is. And I'll point out that you omitted bolding the part where the Brown letter noted that the concerns about transgender youth and the transgender community were independent of the university's action in the matter, so you seem to be basing your skepticism of the process upon something that was not a part of the process. This is not to say that the study wasn't pulled for political reasons alone. It may have been. Only time and actual examination of the issues will tell. But that's not what you've presented here. Regardless, your implied claim that peer review is "BS" if the methodological charges are valid only shows that you have a rather absolutist view of peer review, that it's all or nothing.
Yep, nothing to see here except AM engaging in the same old derpy quote mining of sources which appear at a glance to support his cherished biases. If he is also a Trump supporter you can be sure he gets lots of practice.
