Adversarial review
- This article was considered for deletion at Wikipedia on July 27 2017. This is a backup of Wikipedia:Adversarial_review. All of its AfDs can be found at Wikipedia:Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adversarial_review, the first at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adversarial_review.
- Wikipedia editors had multiple issues with this page:
- This article needs additional references for verification. Please help[0] improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material will not be challenged and removed. (April 2017)
Adversarial review is the process by which some law, hypothesis, or proposal is reviewed by its author's adversaries.
This is most often applied to the scientific community, where outright criticism is traded among scientists.
It is also often applied to legal structures, such as in having three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) which each have certain political power over the others, to create a system of checks and balances.[1]
By being adversarial this form of review naturally requires a marked difference of opinion between the parties involved, or some other form of enmity. This can be useful in that the reviewing party will not be inclined to take any conclusion without solid proof, but can be less useful when the reviewing party takes an irrational definition of a "solid" proof, based more on their opposition than the idea's merits.
See also
References
- ↑ "Interview: Michael Ignatieff Discusses His Book "The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror"". Talk of the Nation. www.npr.org. 7 June 2004. http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/transcripts/2004/jun/040607.ignatieff.html. Retrieved 13 March 2017.
