Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Another awesome thread with the armchair science experts and college dropouts lecturing you on the scientific method. I think you and thorn are the only ones I would trust to be qualified and knowledgeable about science. I'd defer to Topspin on stocks, and I'd defer to cawacko on Porn. But Letting a teabagger play with science is like giving dynamite to a baby - the consequences are disasterous.
LOL @ scientists giving all their raw data to peer reviewers. I actually am quite familiar and have first hand experience with scientific peer review, and I'm not aware than handing over all the raw data to peer reviewers is common practice. I've never done it. Peer reviewers don't have time to pour through reams of raw data. Their job, in my experience, is to review your methods, to see if your conclusions are substantiated by the experimental results, make sure your data and results are reproducible, and evaluate if one took into account alternative hypotheses.
There's nothing magical about raw data. Raw data almost always has to be culled, transformed, or discarded depending on the experimental parameters. The most important thing about data is that it's reproducible what was done to cull it or transform it (and why) and its documented where and how it was obtained. This is what peer revewers would and should check for, because a clear documentation of methodology and reproducibility is what the scientific method and peer review strive for.
Actually Southernman is very knowledgable on science too. He just has that terrible southern contrary streak. Once you get past that he knows his stuff.