Hey Raj

[Joshua Wilcox]

So I have been doing that research I mentioned earlier. I found a couple journals which seem alright. A few actually seem viable. I figured I would throw this up here just in-case someone else might get the bug. 

http://www.liebertpub.com/acm

http://altmedrev.com/

https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=6404

[Ben Hibben]

Not all journals are created (or operated) equally, to paraphrase the colloquialism.  For example, anything that publishes "Improving Homeopathic Practice Using Bayes’ Theorem and Likelihood Ratio" is more than a little suspect; homeopathy ignores all known physics and has been demonstrated not to work repeatedly.  The practice of this has hardly been harmless fun, either; there are cases where it has clearly led to the death of an individual.  Perhaps the saddest, for me, was the little girl who had a simple skin condition (eczema) that a cream would treat who refused proper medical treatment until she wasted away and died, screaming in agony and pain, of massive infections (including one that cause one of her eyes to dissolve).  Her parents were charged in her death (and, in true hypocrite form, had been shown to use real medicine on themselves when needed) but deaths like hers, and those caused by the anti-vaccine crowd, are why people like myself speak up when this nonsense is put forth.  It's not just a harmless belief; it is causing real harm and impacting the most vulnerable amongst us.  (reference: http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-daughters-eczema-death-20090605-bxvx.html )

Even within more mainstream scientific journals (one's where respectable papers are published - not vanity presses that seek the esteem of scientific trappings without the actual work involved) one must learn to spot the differences between a well conducted study and one with problems.  Did they fail to account for their variables properly?  Are they relying on questionable data sets?  A small sample size?  Questionable mechanism for their conclusions?  Confusion between correlation and causation?  There are a number of things one must look for in order to evaluate the claims.  It's a lot of work but if you care about knowledge it's worth it (in my opinion).

Peer Review is also one of the first steps in science, not one of the last.  It allows ideas and data to enter the scientific conversation and be debated. It's after this debate and additional work by other teams that we reach scientific consensuses that we can generally rely upon to accurately describe our understanding of the universe around us at this time.

Of course they may be subject to change in some cases -- we may discover something new about quantum physics that helps explain "spooky action at a distance" better but there are also cases where we can be quite certain: we're not likely to discover the Earth isn't roughly spherical any time soon (for example new data isn't going to come to light to show us it's flat or a cube or anything).  The best way to learn how to spot the difference between these two sorts of understandings is to increase your overall scientific literacy (which I consider a noble and worthwhile goal for other reasons as well).

One great way to help people visualize the value of a shifting understanding that does not know all the answers is to look at the example of modern medicine: would you rather be treated in a hospital of today or a hospital from the 80s?  Despite the fairly short time period it's easy to see how we've made progress and thus even if we don't know everything operating on our best understanding, even as we continue to push that understanding forward, remains worthwhile for the improvements it brings to our lives.

Blenster

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LVL1 - Louisville's Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lvl1+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Joshua Wilcox]

Hey Ben they had a study on lower back pain.. 

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/acm.2011.0408

Results: Over 12 weeks, participants in the IC group had a median of 12.0 visits (range 5–25). IC participants experienced significantly greater improvements at 12 weeks than those receiving UC alone in symptom bothersomeness (p=0.02) and pain (p=0.005), and showed greater improvement in functional status (p=0.08). Rates of improvement were greater for patients in IC than UC in functional status (p=0.02), bothersomeness (p=0.002), and pain scores (p=0.001). Secondary outcomes of self-selected most challenging activity, worry, and the SF-12 also showed improvement in the IC group at 12 weeks. These differences persisted at 26 weeks, but were no longer statistically significant.

[Ben Hibben]

Good for them; I don't have lower back pain.  ;-P  I'm also not paying $51 to read that paper.  One thing I am excited to see in the future of published science: open access!  Especially for electronic copies.

Blenster

[Joshua Wilcox]

Word same here. Course I am unsure how they will make money. It might lead to a watered down version of scientific integrity. Ill see if u of l has this journal on its subscription list when I get a second.

Sent from my iPhone