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.

Sincerely,
Stephanie

Stephanie Frank Singer, Ph.D.
Campaign Scientific
215-715-3479
www.campaignscientific.com

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= 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