Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peer Review or BUST??
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 73 (618930)
06-07-2011 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chuck77
06-07-2011 3:59 AM


Since most if not all of what Creation scientists come up with will not be peer reviewed by the "real" Scientists ... Just because they refuse (yes refuse)to peer review Creation Scientists ...
But this is not true. Hardly any creationists submit their stuff to scientific journals; but when they do they are certainly reviewed. And then rejected 'cos of being crap:
Reviewer comments regarding rejected articles complained about poor presentation ("ramblings..."; "no coherent arguments..."; "high-school theme quality..."; "tendentious essay not suitable for publication anywhere..."; "more like a long letter than a referenced article"), and failure to follow accepted scientific canons ("no systematic treatment..."; "does not define terms... "; "flawed arguments... "; "failure to acknowledge and use extensive literature on particular questions ...")
There's peer-review for you.
Of course, you are free to present whatever arguments you like on these forums: there is no requirement for peer-review. Heaven forbid that we should hold creationists to the same standards as we hold scientists to, or what would we have to talk about?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chuck77, posted 06-07-2011 3:59 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 12:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 73 (619488)
06-10-2011 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 12:29 AM


Really? How would you know it's crap if it never gets a chance?
Two reasons: first, the comments of the reviewers on the papers submitted; second, I am familiar with creationist arguments.
Please, don't tell me they don;t submit them.
I said that they rarely submit them, and while this may be contradicted by stuff in your head, it is supported by the research in the paper I linked you to.
ou know Stephen Meyers wonderful paper that was said to not have gone thru proper review. Thats a lie. It went thru three respevted Scientists hands before being published byu Eugenie Scott and the rest of the anti god crew were besides themselves and the editor got fired becaise he went against the TOE and let another view in.
But this is not true. Sternberg's own website says that he resigned voluntarily before the publication of the controversial paper, and that: "By the time that the controversy emerged I was finishing up my last editorial responsibilities. Thus, my stepping down had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 12:29 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Chuck77, posted 06-13-2011 5:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 73 (619916)
06-13-2011 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Chuck77
06-13-2011 5:17 AM


So, he wasn't actually fired from anything ... but people "chided" him? And criticized the article?
Why not? Do you expect creationism to be sacrosanct?
I find it curious that he said he " resigned voluntarily" BEFORE the publication.
Why? It appears to be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Chuck77, posted 06-13-2011 5:17 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 45 of 73 (625573)
07-24-2011 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Chuck77
07-24-2011 2:40 AM


Re: My perspective, now.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide, off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Chuck77, posted 07-24-2011 2:40 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 73 (625849)
07-26-2011 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Chuck77
07-26-2011 12:44 AM


Re: Peer review and censorship
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Chuck77, posted 07-26-2011 12:44 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 62 of 73 (625858)
07-26-2011 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
07-25-2011 8:15 PM


Gold Standard?
Peer review is the gold standard in science.
No, not really. Passing peer-review doesn't prove that what you've got is gold, just that on a cursory inspection it looks shiny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 07-25-2011 8:15 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Taq, posted 07-26-2011 10:17 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024