Re: Shamos Rebuttal, the Finale

From: Stephanie Frank Singer <sfsinger_at_campaignscientific_dot_com>
Date: Sun May 15 2005 - 10:02:33 CDT

Another little tactic on discrediting Shamo's ideas: his paper is
*not* peer-reviewed, so it does not meet the usual academic standards.
In academic circles, a non-peer-reviewed paper is about as trustworthy
as a personal letter.

Unfortunately, people unfamiliar with academia might assume that any
official-looking paper written by a Professor is a professional-quality
endeavor. So it might be useful to educate non-academics a little on
this point. If Shamos' arguments had really been solid, why wouldn't
he have published them in a reviewed journal or forum? In my view,
it's because they wouldn't have survived the scrutiny.


Stephanie Frank Singer, Ph.D.
Campaign Scientific

OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:37 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT