Barry, (01)
I think that we agree on some of the most important points,
but the idea of recommendations is definitely *not* part of
scientific methodology. Despite the somewhat plebian name,
the "Wisdom of the Crowd" is closer to scientific methodology
than any recommendation from a designated authority. (02)
> We are still formalizing our peer review policies, but it is
> clear that the majority of those involved in the peer review
> process will be users. (03)
Peer review for selecting papers to be published in a journal
or presented at a conference is useful when the number of
available slots is limited and some decision is forced. But
the process is notoriously flawed as a method of selecting
good papers. Those that get "best paper" awards at conferences
are usually ones that offend nobody, but they are *never* papers
that get a high rate of citations after a period of ten years. (04)
Yet even the counting of citations over a period of many years
is very seriously flawed, since even very good scientists often
follow the hype -- i.e., the money that comes from people who
are not scientists and who are very strongly influenced by
credentials and reputation rather than science. (05)
> Since the OBO Foundry ontologies are built by scientists, to
> support scientific research, it is not clear that they are to
> be treated as products. (06)
I don't care what you call it, but an ontology such as Cyc, SUMO,
BFO, Dolce, etc., has a great deal in common with software products
such as Windows or MS Word -- two of the most popular and buggiest
systems in the world. (07)
Science is *never* decided by committees, no matter how prestigious.
It is *always* decided by a laborious cycle of repeated testing and
multiplicities of publications over a period of many years. And the
hypotheses that are ultimately accepted by a consensus of the "crowd"
of scientists may come from unknown clerks at a patent office whose
ideas may be so far out of line with common thinking that they are
denounced. Einstein, for example, got the Nobel Prize for his "safe"
paper on quantum mechanics, not his controversial papers on relativity. (08)
And by the way, we all know notorious lapses by the Nobel committees,
even though they get input from the best scientists in the world,
and they have the luxury of waiting 10 years or more before making
a decision. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (011)
|