Re: population growth & physics ed

[dykstrad@varney.idbsu.edu (Dewey Dykstra, Jr.)]

> The second is perhaps the reason the episode sticks in many folks craw:  if
> I recall correctly, Carl Sagan first announced the results on television
> (during a panel discussion following a dramatic production about WWIII)
> without benefit of peer review, then "published" the result in Parade (for
> which he is the contributing science editor).
>
> George Spagna           **********************************************
> Department of Physics   *                                            *
> Randolph-Macon College  *   "An insanity as enormous, as complex     *
> P.O. Box 5005           *   as the one around me had to be planned.  *
> Ashland, VA 23005-5505  *        I've found the plan!"               *
>                        *                                            *
> phone:  (804) 752-7344  *    -- Robert Heinlein, "They" (1948)       *
> FAX:    (804) 752-4724  *                                            *
> e-mail: gspagna@rmc.edu **********************************************
> WWW:  www.rmc.edu/~gspagna/gspagna.html

Not specifically addressed to George:

I too remember the PBS program on "WW III" with Sagan and others on a panel
following the program.  If there was something in the Sunday paper section,
I am unaware of it.  There was a substantial article in Science.  This must
have been peer reviewed, mustn't it?  I think that this puts a different
'spin' on the story.  While _maybe_ some specific predictions of their
models have been in some way refuted, isn't it the case that the basic
point of their argument still corroborated by actual observations on Mars
and with volcanic eruptions on Earth?

I'm wondering...  Isn't everything eventually 'peer reviewed'?  ...hasn't
cold fusion been peer reviewed at this point?

I wonder what the point is when we "tisk-tisk" people (or worse) about not
going through 'proper' channels of peer review.  Is it because we do not
want anything published which isn't 'true'?  Are we trying to preserve some
sort of image?  Look at the process in journals.  How many reviewers are
there usually?  I expect under 5 of them for almost everything.  Doesn't it
make a _huge_ difference which 5 people are chosen by the editor as to how
the review process comes out?  (If your answer to this last question is
"no," then I know of a bridge I can sell you at a bargain price!)

Seems to me we have evidence right here in this whole discussion that the
whole issue of scientific publication is not nearly as simple as we seem to
be making it out.  We have a bunch of highly trained physicists with
obviously different opinions and data.  Imagine picking any one of the
e-mail notes on this track and how easy it would be to launch it into
publication by picking one set of reviewers and how easy it would be to
bury it by picking another.  I'm not arguing against peer reviewing, but I
am suggesting that the buck does not stop there nor as simply as is often
suggested.

Dewey

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr.                   Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics                    Dept:  (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/SN318             Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University                  dykstrad@varney.idbsu.edu
1910 University Drive                   Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570                       novice piper
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++