Julio Frenk dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, is a co-author on the paper.
He's an academic, not a medic.
Oddly enough there are people in the world who are not motivated solely by profit.
Referee's Report on the submission "Re:Peer Reviewed != True" by BMOC.
The article is to be commended for its brevity and clear layout.
However, it seems that the author makes the claim that peer-reviewed scientific papers do not contain evidence, a claim for which no reference is given and which we find to be unsubstantiated. We invite the author to consider that the "methods" and "results" section of a paper detail a set of observations. Short of performing every experiment and collecting observations personally, it is unclear to us what the author considers evidence to be.
Further, the author is clearly unfamiliar with the content of the referenced material. Indeed, with regard to the Sokal affair, the journal in question was neither a) scientific nor b) peer-reviewed. From the author's own reference:
Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies,
and further,
At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.
In light of the above issues, which we feel are fundamental to the article and could not be addressed in a rewrite, we recommend against publication.
The system (basically) works.
Darwinian evolution is the idea that life today, including human life, developed
over millions of years from earlier species, by a process of natural selection.
Which one of the following statements comes closest to your opinion of
Darwinian evolution?
1. It is a theory so well established that it’s beyond reasonable doubt
2. It is a theory that is still waiting to be proved or disproved
3. It is a theory with very little evidence to support it
4. It is a theory which has been disproved by the evidence
37% of the respondents answered 1.
36% of the respondents answered 2.
19% of the respondents answered 3.
No figure is given for those answering number 4, which I interpret as the "Evolution Denialism" position. Even if all the respondents answered this question this accounts for at most 8% of the survey sample.
So in summary, over a third of the population think that it is beyond reasonable doubt, and over a third would like to see more evidence (and bear in mind that these are people who may have not been looking for the evidence, nor presented with it.)
The reality is that the problem has never been with Ordnance Survey, but with the terms and conditions of Google Maps. It has absolutely nothing to do with derived data or our licensing terms but everything to do with Google claiming the right to use any data you display in Google Maps in any way it sees fit, even if it doesn’t belong to them.
Frustratingly, this is only a problem that exists with Google Maps. No such clause appears in the terms of any other mapping API, including Bing Maps and our own OS OpenSpace.
Glad I'm not the only one who feels the same about our populace, although I won't deny being hypocritical about it myself, even if I'm aware of it.
The Discovery channels are full of sensationalist garbage.
As is Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles about non-scholarly subjects are supposed to represent the consensus of the mainstream media, and a lot of times, this consensus is "sensationalist garbage".
The company I work for is begrudgingly moving to IE8 starting a couple weeks from now. The only reason they are moving to it is because they are also starting to role out Windows 7, and IE6 isn't available for Windows 7.
Therefore they have had no choice but to go through all of the internal sites and fix the numerous ones that only support IE6. Which was the only thing holding them back from pushing IE7/8 onto the XP machines. The good side effect of this is that for the most part all of the internal sites that have been upgraded to support IE8 also support Firefox now.
I am more bored than you could ever possibly be. Go back to work.
