Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Jeez, that's not much of a basis for critiquing the manuscript. As a trial lawyer, I don't find the phrasing of the title unreasonable at all--there are supposed to be standards for what constitutes expert scientific evidence in court. Asking whether the methodologies employed are actually scientifically sound is a very reasonable question and there does appear to me to be an argument made in the free pre-print manuscript that can be downloaded from the abstract page that the methodology employed in most TIAs will over-predict vehicle traffic issues systematically. I don't feel qualified to judge the quality of the argument, but simply dismissing it because it sounds " biased" or advocacy based just sounds like defensiveness for your profession. The accusation is that members of your profession are basically functioning as "advocates for hire" who make it seem as if a particular policy decision is based on scientific analysis. Dismissing that accusation as mere advocacy is begging the question. I think it's unreasonable to dismiss this study as a product of "groupthink" without actually "reviewing" its content rather than whether or not you agree with its tone or thesis.
Sorry if it seems like I'm telling you to defend your profession, but your posts here are volunteering to do just that exactly. I mean that if you're implying that advocacy groups are clearly wrong because they consist of advocates, you're definitely posting on an inhospitable forum.
It seems you read a lot more into what I wrote than what I wrote.
My peer review assignments are for research, where there is (or at least should be) an expectation of objective and thorough collection, analysis, and presentation of data and findings in order to advance knowledge and practice. These types of manuscripts (and alas there are many of them) are trying to argue a specific position, and are typically dismissive of or antagonistic to opposing positions. An article that analyzes issues with TIAs from an objective or evenhanded viewpoint might be much more useful in advancing the state of the practice. Instead, the article could be seen as polarizing.
You mention your profession is trial law. That would seem to be an example of where practitioners routinely take a "I'm right, you're wrong" approach, where objectivity and improvement in engineering practice might be accidental but unlikely byproducts. I will say that in my review of expert testimony in cases involving traffic issues, I've noted that the more the expert tries to sound like an advocate, it seems to be a "pounding the table, not the facts" approach.
It's not my job to defend my profession. That seems to be your imposition on me. I am providing commentary on the issue(s) in question based on my knowledge and experience. And there are practitioners out there who make better money than I do writing TIAs that say what the developer or agency wants instead of a thorough and objective assessment of impacts. But the way to address that is through better guidance stating clear expectations.