The noise that fills the greenhouse can be deafening at times. Claims are made. Counter claims are made. Back and forth it goes. Who do we believe and why should we believe them? Can you believe the things you read on websites like this one? Can you believe the claims you hear on television and radio? Can you believe what you read in the press? Can you believe the claims of politicians?
I have a very simple answer that does little to solve the problem. There are some claims that are reliable. There are others that are reliably untrue. The real question is how you, as someone who is bombarded by all this noise, can legitimately distinguish between the two.
The process of peer review of scientific claims is unparalleled when it comes to proving or disproving scientific claims. Any scientific claim that has not been validated through an extensive peer review process is largely an unsubstantiated claim. The absolute best way to determine what to trust is to determine if the scientific work has been peer reviewed and published in peer reviewed literature. Does this mean that all peer reviewed science is 100% trustworthy? No it does not. However, peer review definitely lends legitimate credence to the work. That being said, peer reviewed science is more reliable than claims from sources that are not peer reviewed.
Here is how the process works.
The peer review process is a check and balance system that helps to insure the validity of any scientific work. In essence, a scientific paper or article is submitted to other scientists who are educated in, and work within the same or similar scientific discipline as the author of the article. It is the job of these peer scientists to study the paper and comment on the originality, quality, and significance of the work.
Peer review that occurs in the early stages of a scientists work is used to determine if funding of the work will be provided. Peer review that happens after the work is completed is used to verify the work before the work is published in scientific journals.
Work published in peer reviewed scientific journals tends to increase the scientists visibility within the field of research he or she has selected to work in. Publishing in peer reviewed journals can be a lifeline for increased funding for future work.
Examples of prestigious scientific journals include The New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Science, and Nature. Each of these journals has extensive peer review processes that their articles have to undergo prior to publishing. As such, they are among the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. There are approximately 21,000 peer reviewed journals that publish over 1 million papers a year.
A “single blind” review is one where the authors name is known but the identity of the reviewers is kept secret. “Blinding” the identity of reviewers enables them to comment freely on the work without fear of retribution from the author for negative review. A “double blind” review hides the identities of the author and the reviewers. This enables the reviewer to review the work without any preconceived notions or attitudes about the author. Some journals are using “open review” in which no identities are hidden. Open review tends to force reviewers into more thoughtful critiques.
It would be disingenuous to make the claim that all scientists believe equally in the various processes of peer review. That being said, the process has been around for hundreds of years and it is the best process available for determining the validity of scientific work.
Let’s get back to the original question asked at the beginning of this post. Who do we believe and why should we believe them? In general, there is one question to ask immediately when you see a scientific claim or a counter claim. Has the scientific claim or counter claim been through the peer review process? Is it 100% accurate if it has? No it is not. However, if it is peer reviewed, you can trust it with more confidence than any claim that has not been through or passed peer review.
Remember that the process of science provides us with “the most likely explanation” of a given observation. The peer review process, while sometimes imperfect, provides us with significantly more certainty about a claim. There are other questions that must be asked if one wants to determine the validity of any scientific claim. The most logical first question to ask is if the claim has been through the peer review process prior to publication.
Note: This post has not been peer reviewed. It is a result of individual study of the process. If you want to learn more about the peer review process search “Peer Reviewed Science” with Google or some other search engine. You will find a great deal of information on the topic. Even though I publish posts on a website, one who truly wants to discover the truth should look at other opinions and come to their own conclusions. Trusting one blog post on one website creates an illusion of accuracy that is just not there. Scientific advancement requires legitimate skepticism. In my next post I will discuss how funding sources can cast doubt upon the validity of any scientific claim.
Comments are always welcome.
Notes From The Greenhouse 