| You could be a winner! Or not. | |||
| Re: Peer Review 101: Theory, and practice -- DWA | Post Reply | ![]() |
Forum |
|
Posted by: crossbowman 08/09/2008, 01:08:38 (About author)
Edit |
Don't like statistics? Really, to make a statement like that ("In brief: "Peer review" is ve-r-r-r-r-y spotty, is no safe refuge for diligent honest inquirers"), you need statistics. You need to figure out how often it goes wrong, and by how much, and to do that you need to collect data on A WHOLE LOT of examples - good and bad - and then crunch it all with statistics. Otherwise, your few bad examples could just be the handful of bad apples that manage to hide amongst the good ones IN ANY AND EVERY FIELD OF HUMAN ENDEAVOUR. Let's face it: we all know from late-night television ads just how misleading that handful of "testimonial" examples can be. You too could win a million dollars in the lottery - but just because some people do doesn't mean everyone does. "Robbins’s claim fails because the Hobbs Act does not apply when the National Government is the intended beneficiary of the allegedly extortionate acts." WILKIE ET AL. v. ROBBINS. David H. Souter, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
with John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito concurring. |
| Post Reply | Email Friend | Alert |
|
Previous | Next | Current page |
|