peer reviewing

[A. Katz]

Dan,

Thanks for recommending Keith's book. I would very much like to read it. 
I'll sse if I can't get access to a copy.

Besides quantitative methods of verifying something to be true, I wonder 
if there might not be also valid qualitative tests.

I'm not just talking about a single counter-example falsifying a 
hypothesis. I'm also thinking in terms of positive proof. I think that 
when the probability that something could happen entirely by chance is 
low, then even a single occurrence of it may be ascribed  probative 
significance.

    --Aya

http://hubpages.com/profile/Aya+Katz

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Daniel Everett wrote:

> While on the subject of scientific 'proof', one of the best guides I know of for infusing linguistics with more scientific rigor is Keith's own 2008 book, Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. Everyone reading this list should own a copy.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On 16 Apr 2010, at 01:44, Keith Johnson wrote:
>
>> When it comes to "scientific proof", maybe the best approach is to say that a result is scientifically proven when the scientific community becomes convinced of it.  No one person gets to declare a finding proven because we humans too easily convince ourselves of all sorts of crazy ideas.  So, convincing reviewers seems to me to be a good first step in the process of scientific proof.  Of course, reviewers are human too and can be lazy, or distracted, or small-minded.  Fortunately there is more than one journal.
>>
>> On revise and resubmit.  When I'm reviewing I think of revise and resubmit like this:
>>
>> minor revision: "Okay, I think I get it, and I'm convinced you are on to something, but I think if you want the average reader (who isn't going to work as hard as me) to be convinced you should make a few changes."
>>
>> major revision: "I can see how this may well be right, but you've left out some crucial details or logical steps, and I need to see the whole story to be convinced."
>>
>> I don't get as much out of suggestions that have to do with making a paper more artful, but I do very much appreciate comments that help me make a better case.
>>
>> respectfully submitted,
>>
>> Keith Johnson
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 15, 2010, at 6:14 AM, A. Katz wrote:
>>
>>> Esa,
>>>
>>> I fully understand what you said, and it makes perfect sense.
>>>
>>> But this problem that you've pointed out extends, it seems to me, beyond the issue of peer reviewing and directly into hiring, tenure, and everything that goes into deciding whether something has been "scientifically proven" or not.
>>>
>>> What can we, as a community of thinkers, do about it?
>>>
>>> --Aya
>>>
>>> http://hubpages.com/profile/Aya+Katz
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Esa Itkonen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just when I was about to participate at the 'peer reviewing' discussion, Tom Givón sent in his contribution which made mine more or less redundant. Still, here is a summary of some musings from those 42 years that have elapsed since the publication of my first article (= 'Zur Charakterisierung der Glossemantik')
>>>>
>>>> When (nearly) everybody agrees that A is the case, it seems less interesting to echo this view and bolster it with more data, and more interesting to try to find out if, after all, it is B that is the case, and once having found it out, to prove it. Once you (or, rather, I) have written an article in this spirit and offer it for publication, the referees invariably respond by claiming that this just cannot be, because (as everybody knows) A is the case.
>>>>
>>>> The end result has been that if (and when) my article has been published, then (just as in Tom Givón's case) more often than not this has been thanks to the editor of the journal in question, who has quietly overruled the referees. (It has also happened that editors privately solicit an article.) For a good measure, there has also been the occasional editor (= clearly a man of strong convictions and/or antipathies) who, overruling the referees, has rejected the article.
>>>>
>>>> In this discussion, there have been those who have confessed not to understand Martin Haspelmath's original point. For me, this can only mean that they are people intrinsically happy with the status quo, i.e. people who claim 'A' when (nearly) everybody does so, and start claiming 'B' only when nudged into doing so by the winds of change.
>>>>
>>>> Esa
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen
>>>>
>>
>
>