JLT
Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008
|
Those are the rules...
This editorial in the current Nature Immunology spells out nicely why most IDist don't stand a chance at getting an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
| Quote | Dogmas, paradigms and proving hypotheses
Nature Immunology 11: 455(2010)
doi:10.1038/ni0610-455
Strong hypotheses stand the test of time because of rigorous experimentation by authors and the scientific community.
From time to time a manuscript arrives accompanied by a cover letter in which the authors state that the new work being submitted “overturns existing dogma” on some immunological process. Others suggest their work is “paradigm changing” and go on to describe how they prove their hypothesis. Naturally, such bold claims capture our attention, but unfortunately, more often than not, they fall short. Why is this so?
Part of the problem is the authors' choice of words to describe the hypothesis addressed in the study and why this question is relevant to a large cross-section of the community. A 'dogma' is defined as a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority and held to be incontrovertibly true. However, immunology is an experimental science and rarely if ever can dogmatic claims be made in science. Moreover, a paradigm (a word derived from the Greek paradeiknynai, meaning 'to show side by side') is defined as an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype. Perhaps better stated, a paradigm is a current model supported by abundant experimental evidence. For example, one immunological paradigm at present might be the hypothesis that innate immunity triggered by pattern-recognition receptors initiates and shapes adaptive immune responses through the expression of proinflammatory cytokines. For authors who seek to claim “paradigm-changing” results, the onus is on them to explain why the previous theory cannot explain the present findings. They also need to put forth a new or unifying hypothesis that can account for both the previous work and the new experimental data. Admittedly, the bar is higher for authors claiming to “change” a paradigm.
[...]
Alternative interpretations of the same data set give rise to competing hypotheses. Here, as with the posing of any hypothesis, authors should strive to test the robustness of their model and determine how well its predictions hold true after perturbation of the system. A weak test to demonstrate the desired result is not strong support for a favored hypothesis. Instead, the challenge is to design the most stringent test possible to disprove the hypothesis and then see if the new data rule out or support the hypothesis. In the process of peer review, referees will often voice concerns that additional experimentation is needed to rule out alternative interpretations. Such referee concerns are not intended to hold back publication of the work but to provide additional support that the authors' hypothesis is the most likely explanation of the data set and to show how the hypothesis fits in the broader framework of previous findings. Often such control experiments have already been done by the authors, as they too recognize the need to rule out trivial or alternative explanations for the data obtained, but these have not been included in the submitted manuscript. Such data can readily be incorporated into a revision and serve to increase the validity of the authors' conclusions.
[...]
Scientific advancement does not occur by proclamation of dogmatic theories. Immunologists, like other scientists, gather data sets from which hypotheses can be posed to explain the findings obtained. The challenge is how to design rigorous tests for a favorite hypothesis—and by doing so, researchers help to truly advance the field. |
Especially the bit I highlighted in blue is the part that IDists just don't get.
IMO it's a useful article one can point to in case yet another ID proponent claims ID is unfairly excluded from being published in peer-reviewed journals when all ID has is the claim that every protein that has both a function and is longer than 35 aminoacids can't have evolved because it has more than 150 bits of dFSCI or whatever the newest creation is (seems that each IDiot nowadays makes up his own acronym, the more letters the better; maybe they think that'll increase the information content of their undefined mess and if they keep it up it will at some point suddenly become useful).
--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner
|
