starting strength gym
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: The Literature

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2023
    Posts
    438

    Default

    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    • starting strength seminar october 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy4life View Post
    I definitely don't publish in the hope of making monkey.
    If our applied biologists aren't trying to make monkey then what the hell are we paying them for?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tommy4life View Post
    Seems like a typical reviewers' comments on a submitted draft. My first paper had close to 30 criticisms in it, and that was with the Journal editor being one of my supervisors.
    Anyway, I didn't want this to turn into a debate, online debates are almost always stupid.
    You're right, the comments were very typical, which is the problem. They had absolutely no experience with the phenomenon I was detailing, yet they prevented it's publication. Happens every day, and this is a problem. Peer review has nothing to do with Science. It doesn't ensure either the quality of the data or its analysis. I merely ensures conformity.

    I'll ask again, because this is important: Is your academic employment contingent on publication? My self-employment is. And the board is reviewed by me, because somebody has to fix typos. But you are not my "peer" and you have no input aside from your posts, which I VERY seldom delete, and which I never alter the content of. You can come on here and say that wrist curls are the most important exercise in the weight room, and I will merely refute you. But you get to say stupid shit and I get to demonstrate the stupidity. Peer-review is an inferior alternative, and online debates are not that stupid after all. But a guy with a terminal degree in an exercise science can't be expected to know that. You are part of this system, and you can't see the problems for the trees.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mizuchi23 View Post
    2. How can anyone contribute to science when Anthony Fauci is the science?
    Lots of ways, apparently.

    How Dr. Fauci Achieved a Net Worth of $12.6 Million

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    664

    Default

    In my opinion, the main problem in exercise science (among other fields) is not so much peer review, but the mechanism by which individual studies and observations are aggregated and translated into state-of-the-art recommendations. The formal methods of doing so (systematic review and meta-analysis) are currently impotent, so we are left with the consensus-based, credentialist approach to determining, say, whether periodization is useful for novices. This often happens within peer review, but is dissatisfying even when it doesn’t.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    265

    Default

    Either I am entering the wrong search terms or someone is suppressing, because I can't seem to find any links to the story about the guys who submitted the completely made up paper and got it "peer reviewed", and showed it to be a fraud of a process. But that is all I can think of anymore when someone talks about peer review in a positive sense.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    You're right, the comments were very typical, which is the problem. They had absolutely no experience with the phenomenon I was detailing, yet they prevented it's publication. Happens every day, and this is a problem. Peer review has nothing to do with Science. It doesn't ensure either the quality of the data or its analysis. I merely ensures conformity.

    I'll ask again, because this is important: Is your academic employment contingent on publication? My self-employment is. And the board is reviewed by me, because somebody has to fix typos. But you are not my "peer" and you have no input aside from your posts, which I VERY seldom delete, and which I never alter the content of. You can come on here and say that wrist curls are the most important exercise in the weight room, and I will merely refute you. But you get to say stupid shit and I get to demonstrate the stupidity. Peer-review is an inferior alternative, and online debates are not that stupid after all. But a guy with a terminal degree in an exercise science can't be expected to know that. You are part of this system, and you can't see the problems for the trees.
    Maybe an addendum to my previous post, but the OP said "The process isn't perfect but its better then unregulated opinion pieces you find on social media and in political charged talk shows". By his implication this site is "unregulated," yet look at what having to defend your ideas brings here. A higher level of discourse, with no "peer review" in place. Funny how that works.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    636

    Default

    You work for RMIT which is a very progressive melbourne university (aren't they all)

    Work in academia for 20 years and you'll understand. Or drink the kool aid out of necessity in which case you'll be a 3 figure IQ retard.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Garage of GainzZz
    Posts
    3,305

    Default

    It was James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose. So-called “grievance studies.”

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    6

    Default

    I was going to leave it at that but you took the time to reply so I'll extend the courtesy.

    Your expereince with the review process is not that controversial. The 30 criticisms I recived made me self reflect on my writting (yes it was hard on the ego): it improved my statisical analysis, made me add references to statements which I thought were self evident (too me), made me reword a lot of my sentences becaus they made sense to me but confused the reader (probably the most common change), and some comments I acknowledged respectively but ignored. Overall, the quality of the data analysis was improved and the clarity with which the data was discussed was improved. Is this a form of conformity? yeah, conformity to certain standards. However, these standards are there for a reason. For exmaple, in everyday language it is perfectly acceptable to use emotional language such as "outrages", or absolute terms like "good:bad". This might seem like academic cencorship at first but its a good rule for reducing subjectivity and bias. You're just supposed to present the data, and discuss it as objectievely as humanly possibly, which is hard to do so rules are in place. There are many rules like this. If you have been in industry for many years then these rules are unfamiliar to you so it perfectly normal to get tripped over. If an academic entered the indutry after 30 years, he would have some similair issuesn, but it would be arrogant of that academic to then call all the industry people idiots.

    To answer the other question. Yes, indirectly I get paid if I publish. However, I am not doing research to get paid, I get paid because I happen to do research. There is a big difference here. I am free to do what I want, if those above me want me to do something which compromises my ethics I will simply leave. I left the army as soon as politcal correctness direclty interfered with training the lads, I left a job in a commercial gym as soon as they said I have to trick people to sell them memberships, and I will leave academia when they force me to do something I disagree with (ethically).

    To your last point. Internet debates are usually always stupid because moderate sober people dont argue on the internet (yes, I see the irony). They're spending time with people they love and doing the things which make them happy. I belive only a very small minority actually comments/argues on the internet, and these people are generally extreme in their views: vegan vs carnivores, lefties vs righties, so forth. So internet debates are generally emotional charged, lack any sober debates, moslty driven by trolls, and are generally stupid.


    Kind regards,
    Darrick

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy4life View Post
    Its not supposed to make you dime. I definitely don't publish in the hope of making monkey. I do it to contribute to science. If I wanted money I'd go work in the industry.
    The process isn't perfect but its better then unregulated opinion pieces you find on social media and in political charged talk shows.
    Hah.
    That's a good one.

    The modern peer review and academic publishing process did not begin until the 1970s, when robert raxwell got involved (yes, the infamous massad agent and father of child-sex ring blackmail operator, ghislaine maxwell)
    Scientific publishing is a huge money-making machine / Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein scandal - Invidious (this video is part of a 4 part series they published on the peer review process)
    The whole peer review process since the 1970s has become a money-making and censorship system.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •