On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:57, Adrienne Smith wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:23, Keith Thomas wrote:
>
>>
>>It will be easy to criticize aspects of the article from
>>the level of personal anecdote or armchair
>>speculation, but Loren has set the bar high
>>by relying thoughout on peer-reviewed literature, so
>>let's confine our criticisms to those we can
>>substantiate with peer reviewed references ourselves.
>>
>>Keith
>
>Doesn't the quality of peer-reviewed literature all too often depend
>upon who those peers are and what their biases may be?  I'm not
>saying that peer-reviewed literature is always suspect or worthless
>-- but I am saying that peer-reviewed literature is no guarantee
>of "setting the bar high."  There is tremendous politics involved
>regarding which studies get funded and which articles get published.

By setting the bar "high", I was not referring the the quality of the information, it's truth, relevance
or accuracy but the fact that it was sourced from referenced, replicable studies.

Peer review does not protect against fraud.  Nor is peer review essential: Watson and Crick's 1951
paper on the structure of DNA was not peer reviewed, nor were Einstein's 1905 papers.  I am not
arguing for the infallibility of peer review.  Indeed, I went through university when Thomas Kuhn's
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was fresh and new and read by almost all students, so I
know peer review won't help achieve a paradigm shift. However, Cordain is managing, effectively,
to point to a paradigm shift (the paramountcy of the Evolutionary Health Principle for humans [as
well as all other mammals]) from within the current paradigm.

I was not launching a defence of the peer review process.  All I was asking for is that criticisms of
Cordain's article be based on recognized evidence or logic. It would be to be capricious to criticize
a well-referenced paper on the basis of armchair speculation, prejudice or personal anecdote
when the paper is published in a different realm of discourse.  If Cordain didn't care about the
quality of his evidence, or want his evidence checked, he could publish his stuff on his website.

Jim Swayse asks why Loren Cordain's paper does not refer to foreign proteins.  Good question.
Let's know, Adrienne what you think of the paper.  I gave a copy last night to the Medical Director
of the National Heart Foundation - he's young and open-minded and I'm confident it will do some
good there.  I'm also working with a local branch of Doctors for the Environment on a series of
brochures and posters for doctors' waiting rooms based on the Evolutionary Health Principle and
papers like Cordain's (and the Booth paper a couple of years back) are just what we need as
references for this project.

Keith