At 11:24 PM 3/20/2008, Barry Smith wrote:
>At 10:06 AM 3/20/2008, John F. Sowa wrote:
>>Barry,
>>
>>I think that we agree on some of the most important points,
>>but the idea of recommendations is definitely *not* part of
>>scientific methodology. (01)
What are scientific journals for? Why do they employ a peer review process?
Why does virtually every career step in science involve letters of
recommendation from leading scientists? (02)
>>Despite the somewhat plebian name,
>>the "Wisdom of the Crowd" is closer to scientific methodology
>>than any recommendation from a designated authority. (03)
I think you are just wrong here. See above
BS
>> > 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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (05)
|