
Rôzne Rozhovory Komentáre Slobodný trh Kultúrna vojna Slovenská otázka EUtópia Ideológia Ficoviny

26-07-2006 Andrej Beňo Slobodný trh verzia pre tlač

Skeptický ekológ alebo Kritické myslenie stále žije...

Minimálne od čias renesancie sa v praxi overuje fakt, že jednotlivá ľudská myseľ nie je schopná v sebe obsiahnuť ani elementárne poznatky z každej prírodnej, či spoločenskej vedy. Nevyhnutne sme sa teda stali špecialistami vo svojich jednotlivých oboroch, čo prinieslo značné výhody, ale aj nevýhody... (recenzia knihy Bjorna Lomborga: Skeptický ekológ)

Reakcia na príspevok

where is the truth?

autor: Firstborn

pridané: 27-07-2006 10:51

toto je jedna zo zalezitosti kde najst "pravdu" je velmi zlozite.

Ale ak chceme verit wikipedii, tu je nieco o vydani knihy , celkom zaujimave:

Anti-publication pressures

Dr. Chris Harrison (Publishing Director of social science publishing for Cambridge University Press), anticipating the level of controversy a book like this would likely provoke, took extra care with the book's peer-review process. For example, instead of choosing candidates from the usual list of social science referees, Cambridge University Press chose from a list provided by their environmental science publishing program. Four were chosen: a climate scientist, an expert in biodiversity and sustainable development, a specialist on the economics of climate change (whose credentials include reviewing publications for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) and a "pure" economist. All four members of Cambridge's initial review panel agreed that the book should be published.

While criticism of the book was to be expected, the publishers, Cambridge University Press, were apparently surprised by the pressure brought against them not to publish The Skeptical Environmentalist. The complaints of some critics included demands that Cambridge convene a special panel to review the book in order to identify errors (despite existing pre-publication peer review), that Cambridge transfer their publishing rights to a "non-scholarly publishing house" and that they review their own policies to prevent publication of books described as "essentially a political tract" in future.

In the article, entitled "Peer review, politics and pluralism", Dr. Chris Harrison noted that "many of the critical reviews of The Skeptical Environmentalist went beyond the usual unpicking of a thesis and concentrated instead on the role of the publisher in publishing the book at all. The post tray and e-mail inbox of editors and senior managers at the press bore witness to a concerted campaign to persuade Cambridge to renounce the book." He went on to describe complaints from environmentalists who feared the book would be "abused by corporate interests". Cambridge University Press felt it necessary to issue a formal, written statement, in order to "explain the editorial decisions that led not just to publishing the book but also to Cambridge's resistance to concerted pressure to withdraw it from the market." With these complaints and the publication of a Scientific American issue dealing with the book (described below), Cambridge stated, in response to those who claimed the book lacked peer-review credentials, "it would be quite wrong to abandon an author who had satisfied the requirements of our peer-review system."

Cambridge took the additional step of inviting submissions of publishing proposals for books which offered an opposing argument to Lomborg's but noted that they had, to the best of Chris Harrison's knowledge, seen no attempt by any of the critics to submit such a proposal. This is seen by some to suggest that criticism of the book was political rather than academic. Subsequent to Cambridge's unequivocal assertion that The Skeptical Environmentalist had been subject to peer-review, Harrison noted that "we were surprised and disappointed to see the critics' letter being quoted in an issue of Time magazine (2 September 2002)... in which the authors repeated their charge that the book had not been peer-reviewed despite the assurances to the contrary that they had by then received by the press... It has become part of the anti-Lomborg folklore that this book bypassed the usual Cambridge peer-review process... This is a charge that is repeated in many of the public and private attacks in the press, and it is unfounded."

inac doporucujem si ten clanok na wikipedii pozriet cely, je tam toho dost, aj o kritike tej knihy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalis...

The January 2002 issue of Scientific American contains, under the heading "Misleading Math about the Earth", a set of essays by several scientists, claiming that Lomborg and The Skeptical Environmentalist misrepresent both scientific evidence and scientific opinion. The magazine then refused Lomborg's request to print a lengthy point-by-point rebuttal in his own defence, on the grounds that the 32 pages would have taken a disproportionate share of the magazine. The magazine allowed Lomborg a one-page defense in the May 2002 issue [1] When Lomborg published his complete response on his website, the magazine attempted to remove the page on the grounds of copyright violation. After receiving much criticism, the magazine published his complete rebuttal on-line[2], along with counterrebuttals of John Rennie [3] and John P. Holdren [4].

osobne sa mi zda ze ako to skutocne je sa da zistit len tazko, z tychto kritik, odpovedi na ne a odpovedi na odpovede.
Skor sa stane to co sa stava stale : pre jednu cast ludi bude kniha stelesnenim vsetkeho zleho a neferoveho, pre druhych presnym opakom. Co uz.

Meno:
E-mail:
Web stránka:
Predmet:
Text správy:

Zadajte iniciály Pravého Spektra - PS: (antispamová ochrana)

Upozornenie

Príspevky v diskusii k článku sú osobnými názormi jednotlivých čitateľov. Redakcia Pravého Spektra za ich obsah nenesie žiadnu zodpovednosť.

Diskusné príspevky, ktoré sú v rozpore so zákonom budú odstránené.

O problematických príspevkoch nám môžete dať vedieť e-mailom na adresu redakcie.