Quote:
Originally Posted by Hektore
I'll take evolution to use for an example, since it is so highly politicized and you brought it up. Suppose we were going to to vote on whether or not evolution is a valid explanation for the existence of diverse species on the planet earth. All the research is there, it's been played out to book length hundreds of times. We let everyone vote regardless of qualification. Does the vote matter? No. Does the qualification of the individuals matter? If we make everyone watch an hour long tv special presenting all the evidence, does that make the vote more impacting upon the truth? What if we required everyone to attend 8 years of specialized training before they could vote? Does the vote affect the truth now? That's why it bothers me so much. The vote ought to be irrelevant, the research is what's relevant.
|
Dude, it's peer review. The APA is made up of highly trained, highly experienced professional scientists. They are often the same folks who are publishing the finding of studies. They're peers, not just folks that happen to have a passing interest in psychology.
Just so we're on the same page, the scientific method—the best methodology in place in the progress of scientific knowledge—requires impartial peer review as a check to ensure maximum quality of results. While it's difficult for honest and capable objective scientists to make mistakes, it does happen from time to time. It's important to get as many objective takes on the experimentation and interpretation of results so that the conclusion can be verified.
By applying that understanding to the case of the APA voting on stuff, we can see that it's not just relevant, it's incredibly important! Without peer review, the results from scientific studies would be less reliable. In order for science to be the best science it can be, it needs to be impartially reviewed by other experts.