Post by Carl on Dec 21, 2017 9:59:26 GMT -5
We have updated our lead page listing our the majority of our articles; "Aquarium Information"
This update includes the summary and the occasional critics who makes their criticism more personal and use Ad Hominem & Red Herring arguments to attack these article
Here is an excerpt:
"Often these persons will make personal attacks on people such as Carl when they cannot refute his research and experience. Or they will make "red herring" arguments that an article is not peer reviewed so therefore it is not credible.
Of course the peer reviewed argument is totally false when one considers how often Carl updates these articles over the years based on constructive criticism & research, far more than any other aquarium/pond keeping information articles or YouTube videos (some articles just over their Internet life such as Aquarium Lighting have had over 100 revisions based on peer critique so as to improve content).
As per those who would disagree and their critique based on a number of persons disagreeing does not get into a revision, here is an analogy:
If a half a dozen "peers" sit around a table giving a thumbs up, because when they look out over the ocean and see that there is a clear end, this proves the world flat. Unfortunately this does not make it true."
Case in point is Carl's Aquarium Redox Article, where it has gotten a lot of positive reviews from outside the aquarium industry, but not within as many from so-called peers (although this is rapidly changing as of 2016 with more and more research in water electromagnetism, and water rH).
Frankly those in research outside this sometimes closed minded hobby have much more funding and cannot earn a living if they were attempting to please the status quo in the aquarium hobby/industry. This same problem is common when it comes to aquarium lighting where many refuse to look at either the history of the hobby or outside the hobby into research and practical use and instead will make these same "red herring" arguments in a vain attempt to refute his information.
Fish nutrition is another aspect where anecdotal information is often repeated while science based research and long term experience gets shut out (which Carl has lot of long term experience).
The bottom line is the "red herring" argument used to sometimes attack Carl by closed minded persons (often with little practical long term experience themselves) is that the peer review process itself is extremely flawed as it allows for bias, clear mistakes and much more to get by.
Many have now called this process into question.
References:
*Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
*The case against peer review
*The case against peer review, red herring argument"
Carl
This update includes the summary and the occasional critics who makes their criticism more personal and use Ad Hominem & Red Herring arguments to attack these article
Here is an excerpt:
"Often these persons will make personal attacks on people such as Carl when they cannot refute his research and experience. Or they will make "red herring" arguments that an article is not peer reviewed so therefore it is not credible.
Of course the peer reviewed argument is totally false when one considers how often Carl updates these articles over the years based on constructive criticism & research, far more than any other aquarium/pond keeping information articles or YouTube videos (some articles just over their Internet life such as Aquarium Lighting have had over 100 revisions based on peer critique so as to improve content).
As per those who would disagree and their critique based on a number of persons disagreeing does not get into a revision, here is an analogy:
If a half a dozen "peers" sit around a table giving a thumbs up, because when they look out over the ocean and see that there is a clear end, this proves the world flat. Unfortunately this does not make it true."
Case in point is Carl's Aquarium Redox Article, where it has gotten a lot of positive reviews from outside the aquarium industry, but not within as many from so-called peers (although this is rapidly changing as of 2016 with more and more research in water electromagnetism, and water rH).
Frankly those in research outside this sometimes closed minded hobby have much more funding and cannot earn a living if they were attempting to please the status quo in the aquarium hobby/industry. This same problem is common when it comes to aquarium lighting where many refuse to look at either the history of the hobby or outside the hobby into research and practical use and instead will make these same "red herring" arguments in a vain attempt to refute his information.
Fish nutrition is another aspect where anecdotal information is often repeated while science based research and long term experience gets shut out (which Carl has lot of long term experience).
The bottom line is the "red herring" argument used to sometimes attack Carl by closed minded persons (often with little practical long term experience themselves) is that the peer review process itself is extremely flawed as it allows for bias, clear mistakes and much more to get by.
Many have now called this process into question.
References:
*Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
*The case against peer review
*The case against peer review, red herring argument"
Carl