You can read the rest of this discussion by following this link...
http://disqus.com/PaleoRobert/ (Good news Robert is actually a vegan!)Here is his blog...
http://paleovegan.blogspot.com/
I visited this site to share our recent findings on Denise's study.
This is from the blog "Letthemeatmeat", below is a portion of the discussion between the Author of the blog post and "Paleo Robert" Sorry it may be a bit disjointed but I found it challenging to copy and past the comments in the proper order.
Robert:
These two links give some solid advice.
-- http://www.dissertationadvisors.com/articles/ge...
-- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200...
To help her chances even more, I'd suggest she first send her manuscript to a few experts in the field for review, including at least one who is likely to disagree with her initial hypothesis (maybe even Campbell himself). It might seem odd to ask one's adversaries for help, but scientists do it all the time; they're trained to separate their own ideas from evaluations of the merits of others' work. An honest critic is far more likely to help you spot weaknesses in your methods than is a like-minded researcher, however competent.
I wish her luck. Despite my respect for credentials, I champion the cause of lay researchers everywhere.
-- http://www.dissertationadvisors.com/articles/ge...
-- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200...
To help her chances even more, I'd suggest she first send her manuscript to a few experts in the field for review, including at least one who is likely to disagree with her initial hypothesis (maybe even Campbell himself). It might seem odd to ask one's adversaries for help, but scientists do it all the time; they're trained to separate their own ideas from evaluations of the merits of others' work. An honest critic is far more likely to help you spot weaknesses in your methods than is a like-minded researcher, however competent.
I wish her luck. Despite my respect for credentials, I champion the cause of lay researchers everywhere.
Author:
That isn't science, that's clinging to excuses to write her off. Shouldn't the lack of peer review be an incitement to questioning her claims, not just completely ignoring them?
Robert:
Nope. The burden of proof lies with those challenging the established model; those defending it are under no obligation to accept the challenger's ideas as valid at face value. Step One after data-collection and experiment is submitting to peer-review, by a recognized body of experts in the field. If the work is good enough, it gets published. If it overturns long-held ideas with better evidence, it wins awards. If it fails to cut the mustard, it's ignored or sent back for revision.
That's the standard Campbell had to meet with all his research over his career. It's the standard that all medical and scientific researchers have to meet. Anyone else who wants their work seriously considered should meet the same minimum standard.
Nope. The burden of proof lies with those challenging the established model; those defending it are under no obligation to accept the challenger's ideas as valid at face value. Step One after data-collection and experiment is submitting to peer-review, by a recognized body of experts in the field. If the work is good enough, it gets published. If it overturns long-held ideas with better evidence, it wins awards. If it fails to cut the mustard, it's ignored or sent back for revision.
That's the standard Campbell had to meet with all his research over his career. It's the standard that all medical and scientific researchers have to meet. Anyone else who wants their work seriously considered should meet the same minimum standard.
Author:
To test her conclusions, all anyone needs is access to the original China Study data and an ability to interpret it.
To test her conclusions, all anyone needs is access to the original China Study data and an ability to interpret it.
Robert:
Wrong. You'd also need years of training as an expert in the relevant fields of science and medicine. It really isn't something that can be done by just anyone.
Wrong. You'd also need years of training as an expert in the relevant fields of science and medicine. It really isn't something that can be done by just anyone.
Author:
You're using the lack of peer review as an automatic disqualifier. Why not use it to say "this hasn't been fully settled -- let's see if other people can duplicate her conclusions"?
You're using the lack of peer review as an automatic disqualifier. Why not use it to say "this hasn't been fully settled -- let's see if other people can duplicate her conclusions"?
Robert:
That's what happens after peer-review, not before it.
That's what happens after peer-review, not before it.
Author:
It makes no sense to insist that she go through institutional peer-review channels for this. She's not a part of the institution that you say should be judging her claims.
It makes no sense to insist that she go through institutional peer-review channels for this. She's not a part of the institution that you say should be judging her claims.
Robert:
First, yes it does make sense; it's the bare minimum that all other researchers in the field -- expert or layperson -- must meet. Why should her work get special treatment?
Second, she doesn't need to be part of the institution. Laymen often get their work published, if it's rigorous enough.
First, yes it does make sense; it's the bare minimum that all other researchers in the field -- expert or layperson -- must meet. Why should her work get special treatment?
Second, she doesn't need to be part of the institution. Laymen often get their work published, if it's rigorous enough.
Author:
Isn't putting something on the internet for anyone to question one way of submitting to peer-review?
Isn't putting something on the internet for anyone to question one way of submitting to peer-review?
Robert:
No. Science isn't a popularity contest, and most laypeople really do not possess the expertise necessary to do peer-review properly. There's a damn good reason people spend thousands of dollars and man-hours getting science educations. It's complicated, rigorous and difficult. The general public really can't do it as well as trained experts can.
You wouldn't let just anyone diagnose your medical problems, or work on your car, would you?
No. Science isn't a popularity contest, and most laypeople really do not possess the expertise necessary to do peer-review properly. There's a damn good reason people spend thousands of dollars and man-hours getting science educations. It's complicated, rigorous and difficult. The general public really can't do it as well as trained experts can.
You wouldn't let just anyone diagnose your medical problems, or work on your car, would you?
Author:
Have you read her China Study entries?
Have you read her China Study entries?
Robert:
Not in detail. Her work looks fairly rigorous on its face, and she is clearly a very intelligent person. However, I have not checked her math, and I don't possess the qualifications necessary to evaluate her work the way an expert in the field could (neither, I suspect, do most readers of her blog or this one). While it's possible that she has made an important discovery, one should not assume so just because one likes what they're reading. Skepticism should be the default mindset towards all authoritative claims... especially if you're inclined agree with them (because it's easier to fool yourself otherwise).
Not in detail. Her work looks fairly rigorous on its face, and she is clearly a very intelligent person. However, I have not checked her math, and I don't possess the qualifications necessary to evaluate her work the way an expert in the field could (neither, I suspect, do most readers of her blog or this one). While it's possible that she has made an important discovery, one should not assume so just because one likes what they're reading. Skepticism should be the default mindset towards all authoritative claims... especially if you're inclined agree with them (because it's easier to fool yourself otherwise).
Author:
Simply hide behind a non-existent "scientific" consensus, and the fact that she's not working within a flawed, and sometimes, biased system.
Paleo Robert:
Lack of peer-review is a perfectly legitimate basis on which to decline considering her points further. Bloggers never seem to get that this is the first standard by which all scientific claims are and should be measure. Sure, it's imperfect (what institution isn't?), but it's the best we've ever done. And it is astonishingly effective at both self-correction and BS-detecting over the long term.
Lack of peer-review is a perfectly legitimate basis on which to decline considering her points further. Bloggers never seem to get that this is the first standard by which all scientific claims are and should be measure. Sure, it's imperfect (what institution isn't?), but it's the best we've ever done. And it is astonishingly effective at both self-correction and BS-detecting over the long term.
Author:
The book which she is critiquing is not itself a peer-reviewed publication.
The book which she is critiquing is not itself a peer-reviewed publication.
Robert:
Well, by your standard, why should it need to be? And anyway, all of its original research was peer-reviewed (this was Oxford and Cornell, remember).
Well, by your standard, why should it need to be? And anyway, all of its original research was peer-reviewed (this was Oxford and Cornell, remember).
Author:
The China Study is constantly held up as a banner around which the vegetarian/vegan community rally, and is a very large part of what you call the current scientific consensus. To see it exposed for what it truly is- an agenda driven piece of work that draws dubious conclusions from a study that could have done so much to help people the world over- is heartwarming.
The China Study is constantly held up as a banner around which the vegetarian/vegan community rally, and is a very large part of what you call the current scientific consensus. To see it exposed for what it truly is- an agenda driven piece of work that draws dubious conclusions from a study that could have done so much to help people the world over- is heartwarming.
Robert:
Except that it hasn't been exposed as any such thing. Again, until its critics can produce critiques they're willing to submit to peer-review, I decline to take them seriously. If they can't mean even this minimal standard, there is no good reason for anyone to do so.
And didn't you just tell me that the consensus was non-existent?
Except that it hasn't been exposed as any such thing. Again, until its critics can produce critiques they're willing to submit to peer-review, I decline to take them seriously. If they can't mean even this minimal standard, there is no good reason for anyone to do so.
And didn't you just tell me that the consensus was non-existent?
Replies
suppose they said that hydrochloric animals don't have herbivoric acid in their stomachs.
hmmm ... may be you should suggest that to them and they'd thank you for correcting their little slip-up. :D
in friendship,
prad
robert is definitely good!!
i like how he is direct, definite and very composed.
he presents things well too.
some good stuff on his site as well.
actually, you were pretty good in those exchanges yourself - that rick person couldn't seem to say much beyond the "you don't know what you are talking about".
and i saw him wanting to ignore robert's posts till they were submitted for peer review - i guess he got frustrated. :D
great if he joins us here.
in friendship,
prad