Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
The message
from martin contains these words: Your description fitted most green house crops GM or no GM. I'm glad you said 'most'. On my smallholding I used to grow Ailsa Craig, Shirley and Alicante in a big greenhouse and sell them at the gate. Soil in the greenhouse was prepared in the autumn with rabbit and goat manure and vegetable compost, and the tomatoes grown on it were snapped-up by those who got to know about them, because they had applied no artificial sprays or fertilisers, but more than that, they had superb flavour. Likewise my soft fruit went like wildfire for the same reasons. I meant the stuff imported from the Netherlands and on sale in most UK supermarkets. You didn't make that very clear...... -- Rusty Hinge horrid·squeak&zetnet·co·uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"BAC" wrote in message ... "Five Cats" wrote in message ... In article , Michael Saunby writes "BAC" wrote in message ... "Michael Saunby" wrote in message ... snip Peer review is about deciding whether an idea should become a part of the body of scientific knowledge, not whether it's good or bad for society. Some scientists really do have very strange ideas about their importance. Peer review is about deciding whether an article should be published in a 'reputable' journal. That's important to people whose careers depend on producing a flow of such published articles. Sure, and once published whether or not others reference it will depend on many things, but once published it becomes possible. There are also the trainspotting style - citation counters, who believe that if more peer reviewed papers support some theory than refute it then that is also a measure of something worthwhile - it probably isn't. Whatever the case, peer reviewed science isn't the start (or end) of anything very much as far as technology is concerned. Peer review is also (or should be) about looking for flaws in the methodology etc. of the study - passing peer review doesn't mean an article is worth-while, but failing it usually means it's a pile of dodgy tosh. Or perhaps that some score settling is being done. Not in my field Franz |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"BAC" wrote in message ... "Five Cats" wrote in message ... In article , Michael Saunby writes "BAC" wrote in message ... "Michael Saunby" wrote in message ... snip Peer review is about deciding whether an idea should become a part of the body of scientific knowledge, not whether it's good or bad for society. Some scientists really do have very strange ideas about their importance. Peer review is about deciding whether an article should be published in a 'reputable' journal. That's important to people whose careers depend on producing a flow of such published articles. Sure, and once published whether or not others reference it will depend on many things, but once published it becomes possible. There are also the trainspotting style - citation counters, who believe that if more peer reviewed papers support some theory than refute it then that is also a measure of something worthwhile - it probably isn't. Whatever the case, peer reviewed science isn't the start (or end) of anything very much as far as technology is concerned. Peer review is also (or should be) about looking for flaws in the methodology etc. of the study - passing peer review doesn't mean an article is worth-while, but failing it usually means it's a pile of dodgy tosh. Or perhaps that some score settling is being done. Not in my field Franz |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"BAC" wrote in message ... "Five Cats" wrote in message ... In article , Michael Saunby writes "BAC" wrote in message ... "Michael Saunby" wrote in message ... snip Peer review is about deciding whether an idea should become a part of the body of scientific knowledge, not whether it's good or bad for society. Some scientists really do have very strange ideas about their importance. Peer review is about deciding whether an article should be published in a 'reputable' journal. That's important to people whose careers depend on producing a flow of such published articles. Sure, and once published whether or not others reference it will depend on many things, but once published it becomes possible. There are also the trainspotting style - citation counters, who believe that if more peer reviewed papers support some theory than refute it then that is also a measure of something worthwhile - it probably isn't. Whatever the case, peer reviewed science isn't the start (or end) of anything very much as far as technology is concerned. Peer review is also (or should be) about looking for flaws in the methodology etc. of the study - passing peer review doesn't mean an article is worth-while, but failing it usually means it's a pile of dodgy tosh. Or perhaps that some score settling is being done. Not in my field Franz |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"BAC" wrote in message ... "Five Cats" wrote in message ... In article , Michael Saunby writes "BAC" wrote in message ... "Michael Saunby" wrote in message ... snip Peer review is about deciding whether an idea should become a part of the body of scientific knowledge, not whether it's good or bad for society. Some scientists really do have very strange ideas about their importance. Peer review is about deciding whether an article should be published in a 'reputable' journal. That's important to people whose careers depend on producing a flow of such published articles. Sure, and once published whether or not others reference it will depend on many things, but once published it becomes possible. There are also the trainspotting style - citation counters, who believe that if more peer reviewed papers support some theory than refute it then that is also a measure of something worthwhile - it probably isn't. Whatever the case, peer reviewed science isn't the start (or end) of anything very much as far as technology is concerned. Peer review is also (or should be) about looking for flaws in the methodology etc. of the study - passing peer review doesn't mean an article is worth-while, but failing it usually means it's a pile of dodgy tosh. Or perhaps that some score settling is being done. Not in my field Franz |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:39:28 +0100, Jaques d'Altrades
wrote: The message from martin contains these words: Your description fitted most green house crops GM or no GM. I'm glad you said 'most'. On my smallholding I used to grow Ailsa Craig, Shirley and Alicante in a big greenhouse and sell them at the gate. Soil in the greenhouse was prepared in the autumn with rabbit and goat manure and vegetable compost, and the tomatoes grown on it were snapped-up by those who got to know about them, because they had applied no artificial sprays or fertilisers, but more than that, they had superb flavour. Likewise my soft fruit went like wildfire for the same reasons. I meant the stuff imported from the Netherlands and on sale in most UK supermarkets. You didn't make that very clear...... I have now .......... -- Martin |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th | United Kingdom | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 19 Jul 2003 to 20 Jul 2003 (#2003-202) | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 8 Jun 2003 to 9 Jun 2003 (#2003-161) | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 27 May 2003 to 28 May 2003 (#2003-149) | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 15 May 2003 to 16 May 2003 (#2003-137) | Bonsai |