Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Nice 1st step. Especially useful in high-visibility areas like this one.
Note that for less visible areas most probably the number of persons interested in doing a review would be small. But it would be good nonetheless. Very good.

2nd step: Do a evaluation of past performance of predicative quantitative science. While some predictions are for the future, some can already be verified:

  1. Predicions on the spread of drug resistant malaria. Did they pan out?
  2. Foot and Mouth?
  3. Flu?
  4. Economics?

3rd step: What about quantitative versus qualitative? Here I am thinking in quantitative finance and things like that versus more qualitative approaches (think Nouriel Roubini and such).
You see, most of the proposals of resident Eurotrib's economists are very "unscientific": in stark opposition to the top journals in the field and also not using the "rigorous" quantitative methods (game theory et al).
In fact eurotribers are qualitative neo-liberal denialists. How unscientific!!!! ;)

4th step: Re assessment of previous publications by scientists that are non-peer. An example: In malaria lots of maths is used for modeling. Other people using maths as a tool (but not in malaria) could read and give an opinion on the maths. It is very difficult for peers to point out errors post-publication... without creating enemies.

I can dream.

In the mean time, things like this "email issue" will probably happen in the future, putting the credibility of current scientists where it deserves to be.

by t-------------- on Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 at 12:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

JakeS 4


Occasional Series