Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
45 online now:
GDR, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, ringo (5 members, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,396 Year: 20,432/19,786 Month: 829/2,023 Week: 337/392 Day: 27/41 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peer Review or BUST??
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2081
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 61 of 73 (625856)
07-26-2011 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Chuck77
07-26-2011 12:44 AM


Re: Peer review and censorship
Chuck77 writes:

It seems fair (the article).

No, it certainly does not. As always, it is impossible for creationists to convey the truth. They don’t expect people to actually go and read up on their twisting of the truth. Discovering the real facts is not difficult. You don’t even have to delve very deep in order to discover their deceit. As an example:

CMI writes:

The First Law of Thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy) was first formulated by German physician J. R Mayer in 1842.

False. It was first definitively formulated by Hermann von Helmholtz in 1847.

CMI writes:

However, Mayer’s revolutionary research was rejected by the leading German physics journal Annalen der Physik.

Mayer’s research was not published due to the fundamental errors he made. From Wiki

Wiki writes:

Mayer was the first person to state the law of the conservation of energy, one of the most fundamental tenets of modern day physics. The law of the conservation of energy states that the total mechanical energy of a system remains constant in any isolated system of objects that interact with each other only by way of forces that are conservative.

Mayer's first attempt at stating the conservation of energy was a paper he sent to Johann Christian Poggendorff's Annalen der Physik, in which he postulated a conservation of force (Erhaltungssatz der Kraft). However, owing to Mayer's lack of advanced training in physics, it contained some fundamental mistakes and was not published.

Mayer continued to pursue the idea steadfastly and argued with the Tübingen physics professor Johann Gottlieb Nörremberg, who rejected his hypothesis. Nörremberg did, however, give Mayer a number of valuable suggestions on how the idea could be examined experimentally; for example, if kinetic energy transforms into heat energy, water should be warmed by vibration.

Mayer not only performed this demonstration, but determined also the quantitative factor of the transformation, calculating the mechanical equivalent of heat. The result of his investigations was published 1842 in the May edition of Justus von ***'s Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie.[4] In his booklet Die organische Bewegung im Zusammenhang mit dem Stoffwechsel (The Organic Movement in Connection with the Metabolism, 1845) he specified the numerical value of the mechanical equivalent of heat: at first as 365 kgf•m/kcal,[5] later as 425 kgf•m/kcal; the modern values are 4.184 kJ/kcal (426.6 kgf•m/kcal) for the thermochemical calorie and 4.1868 kJ/kcal (426.9 kgf•m/kcal) for the international steam table calorie.

This relation implies that, although work and heat are different forms of energy, they can be transformed into one another. This law is called the first law of the caloric theory and led to the formulation of the general principle of conservation of energy, definitively stated by Hermann von Helmholtz in 1847.

Why do creationists love telling falsehoods so much? Isn’t there some kind of “law” in your holy books stating that lying is a sin and is punishable by eternal burning in some special place created just for sinners?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Put in blank lines.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 07-26-2011 8:44 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


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 responded

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

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2081
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 63 of 73 (625868)
07-26-2011 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by PaulK
07-26-2011 2:13 AM


Re: Peer review and censorship
cmi writes:

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?),


This one really made me laugh.

Where do we find a geologist who has studied any rock in South Africa and is a YEC? I mean, every single South African geologist, together with all the foreign geologists working here, accepts an old earth. There are currently close to 3 000 trained geologists working in the country. They can all wave their papers around proving that they were trained at recognized institutions. Every single one of them accepted an old earth after studying the evidence. In this case the evidence are the "rocks". Which is what geologists study.

Which YEC would peer-review my work on the Witwatersrand Supergroup (the one where we find all that gold), seeing that everybody who's ever studied anything about that Supergroup came to the conclusion that those rocks are old and are definitely not the result of a creation less than 10 000 years ago?

Of course we could get some "geologist" at CMI to pretend to "peer-review" the work, but what good is "peer-review" by someone who is not a peer and has never seen one of those rocks in his life?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2011 2:13 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1713
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 64 of 73 (625869)
07-26-2011 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Taq
07-26-2011 1:35 AM


Re: Peer review and censorship
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.

I remember reading of a test of peer review in Physics journals (I have the reference at home, can find it later if you'd like), which took a bunch of articles published in mainstream journals by respected physicists. The names of the authors and insitutitions were replaced by made-up people and places, and any part of the article which identified the authors was changed - but the actual scientific content remained the same. Then, the articles were resubmitted to the same journals that ahd originally published them.

Only a couple noticed that this was the same article again, and the overwhelming majority were rejected, with often scathing criticisms from the reviewers. I'm not sure the pattern of peer review is that different in the hard sciences than it is in Economics.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that creationist articles have any scientific merit, but a paper submitted by Jebediah A Creationist from the Discovery Institute would be submitted to more critical review than a paper of equivalent merit by John G Famousphysicist from MIT.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 07-26-2011 1:35 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Pressie, posted 07-26-2011 4:47 AM caffeine has not yet responded
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 07-26-2011 10:23 AM caffeine has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2081
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 65 of 73 (625870)
07-26-2011 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by caffeine
07-26-2011 4:31 AM


Re: Peer review and censorship
Any "paper" from creationists should be really closely examined, as no creationist organization is a scientific organization and non of them does any science at all. They all are anti-science. It is a given that they certainly will bring their religion into it. We all know that and we all know for a fact that they try to decieve people in every "article". We also all know that their deceit is camouflaged under some sciency sounding vocabulary. Therefore they have to be more critically reviewed. They flourish on deceit, as this is all they have.

Against that we all know that MIT does really good science. Scientists at MIT would actually be very well critiqued and their research will also be very well studied and discussed at the institution even before it is sent for publication. The name of MIT as a first-class institution will be tarnished if the research is found to be a bit off-color. You don't have to look for deceit, as this is normally weeded out at institutional level.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by caffeine, posted 07-26-2011 4:31 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2081
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 66 of 73 (625890)
07-26-2011 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Pressie
07-26-2011 2:54 AM


Re: Peer review and censorship
Chuck77, are you going to have an answer on this? You answered me in another thread on something else. Why do you ignore this thread?.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Pressie, posted 07-26-2011 2:54 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 67 of 73 (625893)
07-26-2011 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dr Adequate
07-26-2011 3:19 AM


Re: Gold Standard?
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.

Within the scientific arena, if it isn't published it doesn't exist. That is the gold standard I am talking about. If creationists want to claim that they have studies which falsify current theories then these studies need to be published. Whether they gain a consensus or not is a different matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2011 3:19 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 68 of 73 (625894)
07-26-2011 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by caffeine
07-26-2011 4:31 AM


Re: Peer review and censorship
Only a couple noticed that this was the same article again, and the overwhelming majority were rejected, with often scathing criticisms from the reviewers.

Were they rejected outright or did the reviewers ask for revisions? In my own field, it is very rare for the first submission to be accepted outright. The vast majority of papers are sent back with suggestions for revisions before they are resubmitted, and those suggestions are not consistent across reviewers. I am not suprised at all that new reviewers would send an already published paper back with suggestions for resubmission.

Think of it this way. If you took an already published book and submitted it to a new editor you would get a list of suggestions of how to improve the book before it is published.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by caffeine, posted 07-26-2011 4:31 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by caffeine, posted 07-27-2011 12:04 PM Taq has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1713
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 69 of 73 (626138)
07-27-2011 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
07-26-2011 10:23 AM


Re: Peer review and censorship
Were they rejected outright or did the reviewers ask for revisions? In my own field, it is very rare for the first submission to be accepted outright. The vast majority of papers are sent back with suggestions for revisions before they are resubmitted, and those suggestions are not consistent across reviewers. I am not suprised at all that new reviewers would send an already published paper back with suggestions for resubmission.

I don't remember. I'd have to find the original reference next time I'm at home and can post it here in more detail, if you're interested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 07-26-2011 10:23 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 07-27-2011 12:13 PM caffeine has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 70 of 73 (626140)
07-27-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by caffeine
07-27-2011 12:04 PM


Re: Peer review and censorship
I don't remember. I'd have to find the original reference next time I'm at home and can post it here in more detail, if you're interested.

I am interested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by caffeine, posted 07-27-2011 12:04 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by caffeine, posted 08-03-2011 3:28 AM Taq has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1713
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 71 of 73 (627628)
08-03-2011 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Taq
07-27-2011 12:13 PM


Re: Peer review and censorship
So I found the book I got this from. The reference for the original study is:

Peters, D. K. and Ceci S. J., 'Peer review practices of learned journals: the fate of published articles submitted again', The Brhavioural and Brain Sciences, 1982, 5, 187-255.

I'd remembered it wrongly though - it was psychology journals, not physics journals. The book I'm getting this from ('Irrationality' by Stuart Sutherland) does go on to very briefly discuss a review of bias based on 619 articles published in physics journals which concludes that it's easier to get published for established names, but it doesn't explain how they concluded this or even cite where this review;s from, so I don't know what to make of it.

Anyway, the original Psychology study (according to the description in the book - can't find the article online) resubmitted 12 articles. Three were recognised as resubmissions, one was accepted, and the remaining eight were rejected, in each case firmly rejected by all three reviewers. The book only has a few brief quote from the review articles, but it tries to give the impression that they were rejected outright. Make of this what you will!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 07-27-2011 12:13 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 08-03-2011 2:07 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 72 of 73 (627703)
08-03-2011 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by caffeine
08-03-2011 3:28 AM


Re: Peer review and censorship
The book I'm getting this from ('Irrationality' by Stuart Sutherland) does go on to very briefly discuss a review of bias based on 619 articles published in physics journals which concludes that it's easier to get published for established names,

It is the same way in biology. Scientists spend their careers building a reputation, and that reputation means everything. New investigators lack this reputation, and so they are sometimes put under more scrutiny. However, it is not the same thing as a "Good Ole Boys" network, if you get my drift. Reputations are earned through quality publications.

Some may claim that this is not an objective criteria, and they would have a viable argument. However, this has been the tradition for quite some time now, and it seems to work. The fact of the matter is that the referees have no way of checking the results. Referees do not run the experiments described in the paper to make sure the results are repeatable. That is up to other scientists after the paper has been published. Therefore, there is an element of trust involved. If an author is well respected then that author's results are trusted more than others, be it a new author or an author with a bad reputation.

This also applies to grant applications. Scientists who have been caught fudging data are often banned from even submitting grants to the NSF or NIH for a period of 2 to 10 years. This is devastating to any lab. Scientists who have had to retract papers for honest mistakes are even looked down on. Reputation is EVERYTHING in the sciences, and I think it is a system worth keeping.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by caffeine, posted 08-03-2011 3:28 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Nuggin, posted 08-03-2011 3:40 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 73 of 73 (627713)
08-03-2011 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taq
08-03-2011 2:07 PM


Re: Peer review and censorship
Some may claim that this is not an objective criteria, and they would have a viable argument. However, this has been the tradition for quite some time now, and it seems to work. The fact of the matter is that the referees have no way of checking the results. Referees do not run the experiments described in the paper to make sure the results are repeatable. That is up to other scientists after the paper has been published. Therefore, there is an element of trust involved. If an author is well respected then that author's results are trusted more than others, be it a new author or an author with a bad reputation.

My understanding of peer review was less about repeating the experiment and more about looking at flaws in the conclusions, overlooked variables, ways to build on the materials.

Obviously not all experiments can be repeated. For example, the E. Coli/Citrate experiment ran for 20 years. No one is going to repeat the 20 year experiment PRE-publication to verify. That would be insane.

To some degree the "results" are going to have to be taken on faith until someone has the time to review the data.

The real goal is to point out: "Hey, your results are fine, but you overlooked the possibility that the cause isn't X but in fact Y which you didn't control for".

Given that Creationists tend to not control for ANY variables, they frequently fail to get published in peer review journals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 08-03-2011 2:07 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019