peer reviewing

Fri Apr 16 17:58:02 UTC 2010

Aya - yes, of course. Single observations matter - if something  
happened, it happened, and it's counter-evidence to any theory that  
says it could not possibly have happened. It may be possible to show  
that it's not relevant to that theory, but it may also be an entering  
wedge - similar observations may come along.
	Lise

On Apr 16, 2010, at 11:52 AM, A. Katz wrote:

> 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
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Lise Menn                      Home Office: 303-444-4274
1625 Mariposa Ave	Fax: 303-413-0017
Boulder CO 80302
http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html	

Professor Emerita of Linguistics
Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science
University of  Colorado

Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics]
Fellow, Linguistic Society of America

Campus Mail Address:
UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science

Campus Physical Address:
CINC 234
1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder