I didn’t say you said that. I was asking for clarification of what your point was when you pointed out that peer review can make mistakes.
It would be good for my writing if you could point out exactly what the lack of clarity in the following words is : " peer-reviewed scientific studies are not equivalent to proven fact. Any scientist will tell you that." Was I not absolutely clear and unambiguous? Was I factually wrong in some respect?
It appeared to be an attempt to use the existence of mistakes in general as a way to discredit specific studies. But I wasn’t sure, hence asking for clarification.
Firstly, I apologise for being somewhat intemperate last evening, which I partially blame on a migraine and partially on poor character. However, in the context, it is completely implausible that any reasonable reader familiar with the English language could have thought that. There was nothing in what I wrote that is capable of being construed that way, nor is there anything in the wider context supporting such an interpretation. It is far more plausible that you're extrapolating wildly from my comment to try to make what is obviously a valid and true point seem ludicrous and unreasonable. Should we put the matter to peer-review?
Nope. Didn’t claim anything. Asked what you were arguing.
We both know what you were up to there, and it's not what you're pretending now.
I’m not.
It rather is. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of studies undergo peer review every year. The huge majority are entirely unremarkable - the day to day process of figuring stuff out and getting that process checked by someone.
To say that ‘academia is discrediting itself’ is a wild exaggeration based on a small proportion of high profile retractions and mistakes in rather specific fields.
We obviously disagree on the prevalence of the problem. My opinion is that you are in denial of the magnitude of the issue.
It is not simply a case of retractions and mistakes. It is also a case of deliberate fraud in some cases, of fiddling data, skewing experimental methodology, statistical methodology, selectivity of publishing, biases in assigning research and so on. There is clear evidence (i.e. of the type that is published in journals) that the proportion of fraudulent and defective papers has been increasing over time. Given the technological advances which aid in reducing error, valid questions exist over the integrity of the process. You don't need a high proportion of errors to discredit an entire endeavour, but the sort of numbers being touted by scientists examining these are shockingly high - well over 20% in some studies and even the majority in others.
However, my opinion is not mine alone and is shared by some reputable scientists publishing in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Other scientists have whistleblown on unethical practice in the business and studies have found widespread "flaws". You may selectively choose to deny the validity of these scientists' findings, but then you ought to extend the same latitude to everyone else and put the scientific output you value on the same level as other evidence.
The problem is somewhat accentuated by systematic conflicts of interest, conspicuous examples of scientists deliberately behaving with a lack of integrity in the public sphere and making claims which are not reasonably supportable, while others at the same time disparage the validity of any output which is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a system, after all, shaped by Robert Maxwell and his control of many of the journals. Some people doubt that he, and his practices, were entirely honest.
I'm sure that the idea would rankle with you of taking some bumpkin's improbable sounding claims about a topic seriously, but science is equally open to spurious output.
