Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Lead poisoning from eating game shot with lead core bullets?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jon Bischof" data-source="post: 1928586" data-attributes="member: 879"><p>I appreciate and and understand your position. And you are right, you would be foolish to criticize anyone's work in any scientific journal; especially since you have not published yet. The best you can do to learn the most from your own research is to go to the expert in your field of study that you trust (other than your Academic advisor) and ask them to read your research and give them a print-out so that they can make comments and suggestions in writing and give it back to you before you turn it in to your Advisor. Once it goes to ProQuest it is most likely you will get little or no meaningful feedback.</p><p></p><p>I know you have been taught the value of peer review and the good goal of adding to the empirical record of knowledge. But the peer process does not always work as it should. It should be independent, unbiased and based only upon scientific data and empirical proofs from well-controlled, repeated experiments.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, even the best-intended system of review can and often is corrupted by various other interests--both monetary and political. Sad really, but it is the nature of the world we live in. I doubt that the peer process will ever be effective again unless the scientific community is forced into it by pressure from outside academia. They certainly are not getting the critiques science really needs for advancement from their own colleagues.</p><p></p><p>I never poofoo real science, but the state of scientific knowledge and advancement needs more criticism, not less. The reason why trust in science is so diminished today is that for years they have neglected to critique the work of their colleagues. And it can be professional suicide to try. </p><p></p><p>Critiques coming from outside the professional academic community can easily be brushed aside by "You are not qualified to speak to this because you lack the necessary credentials." Even well-credentialed, well-argued critiques are often brushed aside because that's not where the funding is. So often the money dictates what is accepted and what is not. The good researchers have been complaining about it for years but if any change comes it will have to take place because of dire necessity. There is simply too much money, politics and power involved for change to come voluntarily. But one day, God willing, someone with enough clout will point out that "the world is not flat" probably to his own destruction--but perhaps to the betterment of science and humanity in the long run.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jon Bischof, post: 1928586, member: 879"] I appreciate and and understand your position. And you are right, you would be foolish to criticize anyone's work in any scientific journal; especially since you have not published yet. The best you can do to learn the most from your own research is to go to the expert in your field of study that you trust (other than your Academic advisor) and ask them to read your research and give them a print-out so that they can make comments and suggestions in writing and give it back to you before you turn it in to your Advisor. Once it goes to ProQuest it is most likely you will get little or no meaningful feedback. I know you have been taught the value of peer review and the good goal of adding to the empirical record of knowledge. But the peer process does not always work as it should. It should be independent, unbiased and based only upon scientific data and empirical proofs from well-controlled, repeated experiments. Unfortunately, even the best-intended system of review can and often is corrupted by various other interests--both monetary and political. Sad really, but it is the nature of the world we live in. I doubt that the peer process will ever be effective again unless the scientific community is forced into it by pressure from outside academia. They certainly are not getting the critiques science really needs for advancement from their own colleagues. I never poofoo real science, but the state of scientific knowledge and advancement needs more criticism, not less. The reason why trust in science is so diminished today is that for years they have neglected to critique the work of their colleagues. And it can be professional suicide to try. Critiques coming from outside the professional academic community can easily be brushed aside by "You are not qualified to speak to this because you lack the necessary credentials." Even well-credentialed, well-argued critiques are often brushed aside because that's not where the funding is. So often the money dictates what is accepted and what is not. The good researchers have been complaining about it for years but if any change comes it will have to take place because of dire necessity. There is simply too much money, politics and power involved for change to come voluntarily. But one day, God willing, someone with enough clout will point out that "the world is not flat" probably to his own destruction--but perhaps to the betterment of science and humanity in the long run. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Lead poisoning from eating game shot with lead core bullets?
Top