How can we evaluate a journal or research study's validity?

In my field (geology) its been a constant "he said , she said" thing especially in global tectonics or geophysical modelling . For a few years there were many competing and conflicting models, solutions and interpretation. Id often write to authors and the juries about such conflicts . Most times they get worked out in a few years and if its an important area of your own reearch, then youre gonna be in the middle anyway. So if theres an especially big point, youd better contact the authors directly, youll find that, in most cases you will be treated with respect. (Once in a while you get some imperious a*hole whose gotta talk over the crowd. I find those infrequent discussions fruitless and so I usually contact the journals and offer a rebuttal that I usually first send around to colleagues to make sure that Im not all wet) In many cases, even in a timely journal, a rebuttal can take a year or more to get published, because the jouirnals always let the original author prepare a sur-rebuttal..

Most journals have a response and rebuttal section at the end of each issue where such conflicts are always offered up.
What area are we talking about?

The latest post (No 2763675) on the Intelligent Design thread offers a starting point.

A science student doesn't need any input from creationists sprouting meaningless, science void crap like ID.

They certainly would be very ill-served by taking any notice of posts of that nature.

It is a calumny to even hint that I am a Creationist and anyone who pays attention to the ID thread would know that.

What a science student should avoid like the plague are the views of people who make ignorant assertions without even checking that they are correct.

What exactly are your objections to the post I referred Spidergal to?

with spendi blabbing on and on and on and on and on about whatever gas bubble is lodged in his cranium at the moment, that haedly constitutes a"journal" topic that spidergal needs to sort out. She , no doubt, has a partricular need for information on a specific detail , not some "arm waving couch potato's" brain farts.

All I did was point Spidergirl in the direction of an article I found on Google, whilst looking for something else, which I thought may help her in her science studies. I didn't make her read it or anything like that. She was completely free to read it or not.

I cannot for the life of me think why you should object to that, particularly without any reference to the article, and all the more so in the crass and intemperate manner in which you have done so.

Your post, like the other one, is the last thing to offer a science student as an example of the general attitude of "scientifics" as she called us.

I think your post is much closer to what an arm-waving couch-potato's brain farts look like when in print than mine was.

Actually, on reflection, what I think fm was doing in his last post was trying out, or maybe refining, his faculty for hissing and tuning his cat calls to what he thinks is in harmony with his basic, underlying mental ringtone.

The idea, thousands of years old, is to provide himself with a sort of whetstone on which to attenuate the cutting edge of his noble spirit so that it can be in form to censure contributions from lesser mortals and persons of low repute and disgraceful drinking habits who engage in debaucheries too disgusting and too numerous to mention.

Which is to say that he's a very good and very pious Christian. That he doesn't know it is an integral part of his charm.

gotta do way better in the bait department ther shpendi. your cast is in the wrists and your just lacking in technique.
Youre no Timber.

Don't I know it.

Re: How can we evaluate a journal or research study's validi

It's a good question, especially as the sheer volume of information on all subject increases without relationship to measured accuracy (especially on the Internet).

The bottom line of validation (without going into philosophy of knowledge) is our own ability to understand the subject matter and then to repeatedly test our understanding with challenges from different viewpoints.

The same thing applies to evaluating basic scientific information except that frequently the depth of the information prevents us from experiencing first hand knowledge of key assumptions. As a result, most of us rely on a structure of validation which arises from peer review, which in turn is a result of the filter of science ("The better theory is the one that explains more, that explains with greater precision, and that allows us to make better predictions. - Karl Popper") (Wandel's Sig line).

In short, my answer to your question is to gather input from multiple "high value" sources and try to understand the material yourself, then draw a conclusion with the highest probable degree of accuracy.

Science isn't about absolute truth, it's about being mostly accurate, most of the time.

ros wrote-



I can understand your modesty ros.