|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Peer Review or BUST?? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
Chuck77 writes: Well, having been here for few months now I have a good idea of what this site is. It a whipping post for Creationists. Reality is a whipping post for creationists. If you choose to base your view of the world on some ancient set of myths, reality will be unkind to you. Creationists are being whipped by observation and scientific research. It's entirely their own fault. The universe will not shape itself around your desires, Chuck. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide, off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3829 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
Chuck77 writes: Mazzy debates, and makes a LITTLE ground and gets suspended? HAHA. Please, she's endured 1000's of insults for simply PRESENTING her side and SHE gets suspended? Who's next Joseph? ICANT? BUZZ is already kicked outta the Science forums for trying to help me present the flood model of the Bible. I think this passage illustrate clearly the dishonnesty and selective memory of creationists. You're making it seem like creationists are persecuted when Dr Adequate (and a number of other evolutionists) got the same treatment from admins when in similiar situations. Buzz is out of the science forums because he doesn't have the ability to learn what science is (like evidence). If he doesn't understand the definitions of words in science, we can't seriously expect him to participate meaningfully in a science forum. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide, off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Chuck77 writes: Tag, im fairly new here and just getting my feet wet but I will do that soon. I think i'll start will Stephen Meyers peer reviewed article on " Intelligent Design-The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" Published by the proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The paper is somewhat controversial (hey, I like understatement) and has been discussed here before, see Meyer's Hopeless Monster. The paper was published while the proceedings of the BSW were under the editorship of Richard Sternberg, who denies being a creationist but later turned up in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, is a signatory of the Discovery Institute's Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition, and now regularly attends creationist conferences. The BSW disavowed the paper:
BSW writes: The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. The paper was roundly trounced at the time, but we can discuss it again if you like. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Chuck77 writes: Mazzy debates, and makes a LITTLE ground and gets suspended? HAHA. Please, she's endured 1000's of insults for simply PRESENTING her side and SHE gets suspended? No one is ever suspended for their position on any issue, and certainly not for making "a little ground." Members deserve congratulations for any progress. Mazzy was suspended not for making a little ground but for going over the same ground again and again, and then ignoring moderator attempts to remedy this. Anyone who can help Mazzy address the rebuttals and back her position with relevant evidence is strongly encouraged to participate. What the thread does not need is Mazzy adding to her well over a hundred posts repeatedly making the same unsupported assertions. Here's a link: Why are there no human apes alive today? Edited by Admin, : Grammar. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
It a whipping post for Creationists. No doubt about it. So you are saying that if someone makes claims that are directly falsified by mountains of scientific evidence that we should just accept it as true? Or should we consistently point out their errors? Should we also ignore the religious underpinnings that cause people to replace reality with myth?
Never, not once since i've been here have I seen ONE F&^%ING Evo concede ANYTHING. You would need to demonstrate that we were wrong before we concede that we are wrong.
I like how Evo hates Christians (Creationists) for standing their ground BUT that's exactly what they do themselves. We don't hate creationists for standing their ground. We hate that creationists are immune to evidence, reason, and logic due to their religious beliefs. We also hate that their stance requires them to pretend that religious belief is a valid substitute for science within the science classroom.
Yet, Creationists are always in the wrong, . . . We demonstrate time after time why they are wrong. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide, off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
.
Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
The topic theme is scientific literature peer review processes - Strengths, weaknesses, and/or things something like that.
All messages should have an obvious and explicit (redundancy?) connection to that theme. PLEASE, NO REPLIES TO THE NON-TOPIC MODERATION MESSAGE! Adminnemooseus Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
To reboot this topic . . .
Peer review is the gold standard in science. It isn't perfect, but it is still the gold standard. If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist you MUST submit your work to peer review and have it published. Creationists are not doing this. It's not even a matter of journals refusing to publish the papers. Creationists are not even SUBMITTING papers for peer review. Instead, they create fake peer review journals where the only peer review is for theologic purity. It's like Arnold Schwarzenegger creating his own awards show and giving himself the Greatest Actor of the Century award. It's a joke. There are plenty of legitimate scientific journals out there, and yet creationists are not submitting papers to these journals. No publications = no science. That's how it works. Creationists know this. It is morally wrong for them to claim that creationism is supported by scientific evidence when they have no peer reviewed publications to back them up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
No publications = no science. That's how it works. Creationists know this. It is morally wrong for them to claim that creationism is supported by scientific evidence when they have no peer reviewed publications to back them up. The "fundamental" problem which prevents creationists from being accepted to peer-reviewed journals is that creationists are not only not doing science, but they are anti-science. One example: Summary of the AiG Statement of Faith (Source) At least one of these creationist organizations requires their statement of faith to be signed by each member on an annual basis. Given this, what manner of science do you think these organizations and their members are doing? It is no wonder that they neither submit to scientific peer review nor would their papers be accepted if they were submitted reflecting the above anti-science approach. They have nothing to complain about. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
The "fundamental" problem which prevents creationists from being accepted to peer-reviewed journals is that creationists are not only not doing science, but they are anti-science. Just once I would like to ninja my way into a creationist convention and ask each presenter "When was the last time you picked up a pipette, used a balance, or used a microscope?" Just once. The expressions on their faces would be golden. What they are trying to do instead of research is discount all of the real hard work done by real scientists. In this respect, it really is anti-science as you state. They already know where science leads. They don't like it. The only option is to make everyone ignore science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
It's not even a matter of journals refusing to publish the papers. Creationists are not even SUBMITTING papers for peer review. Back circa 1984, I heard Fred Edwords on the radio (local atheist org had a 15-minute show once a week). That was when I first heard about the "Bunny Blunder" and about NCSE. That evening he was scheduled to be on another radio show squaring off with Duane Gish; I got a tape of that show. At one point, Edwords told of a peer-reviewed journal publisher friend who was dying to get a creationist to submit an article. Gish poo-pooed it, saying that no creationist article would ever be allowed to be published, while Edwords kept insisting that publishers are begging for such articles. 27 years later, it sounds like nothing has changed. At the very least that creationists aren't even trying to get published. Recently, in the preface of Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth, I filled in a gap in my knowledge of creation science history. Actually, it was in Wikipedia that I learned of a 1975 court case that had thrown out creationism. Apparently, up to that point creation science did not try to hide its religious basis, so it was after and apparently because of this court case that they superficially scrubbed their materials of overtly religious references (eg, quoting Bible verses, identifying the "Creator" as their god). IOW, their game of "Hide the Bible" had started a half-decade later than I, having just come in the middle of the show in 1981, had thought. In his book's preface, Dalrymple told of his first exposure to creationism. In 1975, Henry Morris and Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) visited Menlo Park where Dalrymple worked to present their case for creationism to several hundred US Geological Survey scientists in an evening seminar. Since they were speaking to people whose wife work was studying the history of the earth, they persuaded no one that evening. The following day, they took a tour of the chronological laboratories, where Dalrymple and a colleague engaged them in private debate on isotropic dating methods and on their peculiar and unquestionably incorrect interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as applied to evolution. Gish and Morris and any creationist with some real-world experience discussing creationism with scientists and those with scientific backgrounds has to know that they need to be cagey. They have to know that they don't stand a chance in a one-to-one with a scientist. That is the obvious reason why they avoid peer review publishing. But what Dalrymple's little story told me was that at one time, circa 1975, Gish and Morris actually thought that they could convince the scientists. And then they learned better. Oh, I'm sure that they never realized that the problem was that their own stuff is crap, but they still learned better than to try to discuss or support it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
I kinda got off track there with that useless rant of mine which was WAY off topic. It happens, I apologise to everyone. As far as I know im way more logical than emotional, but debating and such can be draining and I lost perspective. my bad. Im no cheerleader and don't want to be one, but I think Creationists need to be more supportive of eachother, which would be nice but it's hard to get everyone on the same page it seems.
I think actually peer review has a lot to do with it. if we had some concrete reviews in journals, we could focus on that. I've already said that Creations have submitted papers and they get laughed at. Although im not so sure peer review is so great anyway. economist Robert Higgs:
‘Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from important, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to knock down a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. As I have always counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a crap shoot. Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes.’ Im not sure if all this takes place but who knows. it's just someones opinion. That quote is from this article: Creationism, Science and Peer Review - creation.com The article just sheds some light on the censorship of creationism and the peer review process. instead of me quoting the whole article (i've read it) if someone wants to pick something from it and discuss it, cool. Or at the bottom of thaqt article are other ones also. It seems fair (the article). This is how I feel about the situation. Creationists are a joke to a lot of people and no matter what they do won't ever be published. That why they created their own, which are good. I get the info bites from CMI. It's probabnly my favorite site along with Biblical creation. You already saw what happened to the dude who published Meyers paper. Blacklisted, ousted, ruined, etc etc...( that's another forum tho).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I've already said that Creations have submitted papers and they get laughed at. I would be really interested in reading these papers that were rejected. Perhaps there is a reason that they are laughed at? What type of original research was in the paper? What experiments were done?
Im not sure if all this takes place but who knows. it's just someones opinion. Eve worse, it is the opinion of an ECONOMIST. I really doubt that an economist has a firm grasp of how papers are published in the hard sciences. Like I said before, peer review is not perfect but it is the gold standard. Of the scientists I know, I have never seen a worthy paper that was rejected outright by every journal it was submitted to.
The article just sheds some light on the censorship of creationism and the peer review process. Before you can claim censorship you actually need to have a paper that was censored. If you want to be Rosa Parks, you actually have to get on the bus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Creationists are a joke to a lot of people and no matter what they do won't ever be published. If they don't try, how would we know?
You already saw what happened to the dude who published Meyers paper. Blacklisted, ousted, ruined ... ... were just a few of the completely inaccurate words that creationists used to describe him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Of course the article is heavily biased. For instance:
Apart from the glaring inconsistencies in this line of argument (if young-earth research should only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of non young-earth scientists, then shouldn’t old-earth research only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of young-earth scientists? Are the ‘peers’ of old-earth scientists not also proponents of an old earth? Would this not cast serious doubt on the validity of their research?),
The simple point is that articles arguing for a radical reinterpretation of the evidence (and a Young Earth view IS a radical reinterpretation of the evidence) need to pass review by people who are not heavily biased in favour of it. There is no such need for papers assuming an old Earth because it is the mainstream view already. There is no inconsistency there at all. The article assumes a false inconsistency.
Proponents of young-earth creationism are not the only scientists who have experienced this kind of discrimination. Scientists that reject the commonly asserted ‘consensus’ view of climate change (that the earth is abnormally warming as a result of human-caused carbon emissions) are routinely derided in the popular media as ‘pseudoscientists’, ‘heretics’, ‘on the payroll of the big multinationals’ or as having the moral credit of a holocaust denier. In fact, these modern ideological disagreements and debates mirror many scientific debates that have occurred throughout history.
This simply reveals that the author is biased against climate change. There are good reasons why anti-climate change papers get rejected...It is also rather biased about the role of the media, failing to point out that support for climate change denial may also be found there... And then he goes on to claim that the quote including this is evidence of bias against creationism:
I would go even further, in fact. The collection of creationist ideas (6,000 year old earth, no common ancestry, all the fossils laid down by Noah's flood, Genesis creation account read literally, etc.) has been so thoroughly discredited by both scientific and religious scholarship that I think it is entirely appropriate for Research News to print material designed to move our readers away from this viewpoint.
Let us note that the quote here is from a Christian (Karl Giberson) referring to his work editing a publication described as:"...a new 36-page monthly international newspaper that publishes the latest research findings, funding opportunities, and interesting discussions on the relationship between religion, science, and health. " here NOT a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Let us note also that some arguments do not even support the claim.
n fact, in many cases, even reviewers lack consensus in regard to the validity of specific research. Ewen and Pusztai’s research on the effects of feeding genetically modified potatoes to rats was reviewed by both the Royal Society and leading medical journal The Lancet. All six Royal Society reviewers pronounced the research ‘flawed,’ yet five out of six of The Lancet’s reviewers judged that the research should be published. As Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, asks: ‘[H]ow can two (reasonably) well-regarded organisations peer review the same work and yet come to such radically opposite conclusions about its validity ?
What the article fails to adequately stress is that rejections are common and that it is hardly unusual for a paper to be submitted to a number of journals, one after the other. If opinions really are so divided than solid creationist work should be able to find an outlet. To really prove that rejection of creationist work is motivated solely by prejudice we need to see good creationist work that has been through the cycles of multiple submissions to appropriate journals and been rejected each time. But we never see that. The quality of YEC work is simply assumed to be good enough that it should be automatically published despite the massive problems of the YEC viewpoint.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024