[Vision2020] Wal-Mart impact studies

[Deacon James]

Andreas,

Ms. Swanson said that the original presentation was biased and Pro-WalMart.
Mr. Peterson was giving a presentation of his findings, not getting a
thorough review of his methods. That's standard practice for that sort of
presentation. However, because his findings didn't favor the hippy ideal,
the presentation was considered unobjective and Mr. Peterson was assumed to
be hired to do a pro-WalMart job -- without even looking at his methods.

You say, "It is called peer review, and it involves the review of not just
the conclusions, but the data." However, it seems to me that Ms. Swanson and
others had made judgements about Mr. Peterson and his report having only
reviewed the conclusions (if that). Seems a bit biased to me, don't you
think?

And really, I'm still wondering, what would an objective, unbiased
presentation say? What would the findings look like?

Take care,

D

P.S. I didn't get past the second grade, so, no, I didn't learn that. Thanks
for cluing me in.

On 9/10/06, Andreas Schou < ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/10/06, Deacon James < deaconblues42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ms. Swanson, Mr. Solomon, et al.,
> >
> > What would an objective, unbiased presentation on the effects of
> Wal-Mart
> > look like?
>
> Deacon --
>
> If you were not aware, there is a process that academics use to
> determine whether a particular position is supportable or
> unsupportable. It is called peer review, and it involves the review of
> not just the conclusions, but the data. You may have heard of this,
> back in third grade: if you expect to be taken seriously, you show
> your work.
>
> He hasn't done this.
>
> Until he does so, I don't expect that he should be taken any more
> seriously as an authority than, for instance, me.
>
> -- ACS
>
> > Deacon
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060911/00b100c9/attachment.htm