Discontinuing research about ID

Hello everyone,I spent a few years to actually test the predictions of intelligent design at the present time. A paper with about 60 pages and 9 appendices resulted (About Testing Intelligent Design at the Present Time and References About a Triune God, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1504.0033) that supports the theory of ID. We sent our paper to other researchers we know to get some feedback and even to ID proponents at the end. They were really thrilled by our results and suggested BIO-Complexity for a peer-review. We submitted our paper to BIO-Complexity but it was not accepted for a peer review, they only accept papers about biology. We asked other conventional research journals whether they accept papers about ID, but they only replied they will neither review nor publish a paper about intelligent design. Therefore we have now given up to search for a journal that would accept our paper. This statement is not only an expression of regret. I also want to warn every scientist who considers to write a research paper about intelligent design to not do so. It's not worth the effort. No one will ever review or publish it. That's sad but it's the truth.Edit: Concluding statements: [Msg=289], [Msg=294] and [Msg=299]
The Result of a peer-review with a changed paper that disavowed ID: [Msg=390]Edited by Dubreuil, : Concluding statements addedEdited by Dubreuil, : Fourth message added

Thread copied here from the Discontinuing research about ID thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Keep at it ... you'll find a YEC 'peer reviewed" journal or some 'give us your money and we'll publish your paper" journal that prints nonsense. No one will care but the choir, but hey ... perhaps the choir can sooth your sadness.JB

Show us your papers.You'll get all the review you need.AbE: I see you did provide a link. I'm examining it now for evidence of a triune god.But...Star Trek? Really? Is nothing sacred?Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

Do you noticed the URL in the first post?Review is not necessary. We already got some feedback from other persons who mainly agreed with us about this topic. The previous statement was merely a warning to not engage in research about intelligent design. Even a positive feedback here will not help to publish the paper elsewhere. Therefore a review by laymen in information science is neither necessary nor desired.Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

i'm having difficulty getting past your abstract.Why do you think "unconscious patterns" in texts suggest a "bias in chance itself"?How did you determine which patterns are unconscious?It immediately appears that you have erected an ad hoc scaffolding to get where you want to go.Looks like numerology...

Heh.

Welcome to the fray, Dubreuil, From just your abstract:

quote:

---

... The residual uncertainty was calculated to 1 : 10^7 and a high correlation ratio for the data basis related to the found pattern was proved through an intra class correlation test. The results are statistically significant with 5,3 sigma. ...

---

What are your assumptions that lead to this conclusion and how did you test them for accurately modeling reality?What you appear to have done is mistake a model for reality. Math cannot prove or disprove reality, all it can do is model it.Now in one sense, all science does is approximate reality with models, however, the scientific validity of a model is found by testing it against reality. With no testing all you have is a conjecture, a concept, or a (weak) hypothesis. If it is not testable then it is not scientific but philosophical (and you can't tell if it is true or not). If the testing contradicts the hypothesis, then it is the model that is incorrect (it does not approximate reality).We think of the models as approximate explanations, and the approximations are refined by repeated testing to eliminate the chaff from the wheat. Perhaps that is because it appears you haven't completed the requirements for review. It doesn't seem that you have properly tested (or even have a test for) your hypothesis.Can you state what your falsification test is? Can you excerpt where you have done this testing and what the results were? Without scientific testing to validate or invalidate your hypothesis you are not in a position to publish, according to standard scientific protocols. What are those predictions?Running simulations is not necessarily testing against reality, you need to first show you can simulate reality, then predict something new and test for it. It appears that all you have done is a mathematical review of data based on certain unspecified (as yet) assumptions:

quote:

---

... It is shown that the results are best explained by a bias in chance itself, to create nontrivial structures. ...

---

Curiously, evolution demonstrably shows a robust ability to derive nontrivial structures, by the act of selection on random variations.Physics and chemistry also show that molecular reactions are not pure chance reactions and arrangements, but that the structures are predictable from the atomic structures. This chemical selection is thus also nontrivial.So I suspect that your model does not adequately model natural mechanisms. How did you eliminate all other god/s?One of the problems I have with Neo-paleyism is the failure to consider other explanations for perceived phenomena.See Is ID properly pursued? for further comments.Enjoy

I did, however, debate on this forum is not done by pasting urls, but by discussion of specific points.Can you pick your best argument from the paper and present both it and the objective empirical evidence that supports it? Without open peer review and critiques (getting published is the first step) it is not science, just an expounding of assertion/s. What about people that disagree with you? Getting support from the choir doesn't test your assertions as having broad application. This is like cherry picking evidence to only include that which supports your assertions. Curiously, this statement applies to any set of assertions that are not supported by rigorous testing against reality. You can't expect to get a peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal without doing the science. Amusingly there are many people here with PhD's in the appropriate fields, and they can help you to reach the level of science necessary for publication if that is your actual desire (as opposed to just wanting to whine about being suppressed).If you want help I suggest you open up and provide substance. Politely and respectfully.Enjoy.

The whole Appendix B is about the falsification test. The question was: "Do you accept papers about intelligent design for a peer-review?" and there was always a refusing answer. There was no reason to sent the paper to the journal after this refusal.The best argument is presented on page 6-7 under "Proving the pattern". The objective empirical evidence for this calculation is represented in Appendix A and Appendix B on pages 16-37. The objective empirical evidence for the reference about a triune God is represented on the pages 39-58.Seriously, you can't review the paper within a few hours. It takes at least a month to examine the whole paper. Not even experienced reviewers can review a paper of this size in less than a month.

This is still argument by URL. If you want the ideas considered here you will have to post them here. It is far better that you restate them in words more suitable for discussion here than in the form that is best for a scientific paper. I bit like you would if you were making a presentation at a scientific conference. In such a venue you would not simple put parts of your paper up on powerpoint slides.

The paper is not one of the typical intelligent design papers that can be summarised with a few sentences. The objective empirical evidences are presented on 42 pages and this empirical argument can not be shortened. The content of the paper is not suited for a quick discussion. The papers content is comprehensive, exacting and contains only rarely unnecessary words. A removal of sentences will result in decreased understandability. I doubt you will spend some time to understand the paper if you already dislike to follow just an URL. The persons that were asked for a comment before needed at least three weeks to review the paper completely. I doubt anyone here will spend the same amount of time. Therefore I'm sceptical how reviews here could have a good quality.

I'd like to reemphasize AdminNosy's point. This is from the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Even subjects like general relativity and quantum mechanics can be made clear in principle in just a few sentences. Discussions here can go on for months, there is time. Please explain your research. You'll find there are people here prepared to listen, understand, and critique.

Quotation from page 6-7The pattern was created to fit with season 1, 3 and 4 at the actual start of the episode (00:00). Afterwards it was tested on season 5 and 6 and a random data source. For the random data source it was assumed for the first season, that all episodes start at an other time (03:00-07:00) right after the opening credits. With randomized starting times the pattern did fit with 15 episodes and didn't fit with 9 episodes (Appendix B). Therefore the probability for the pattern to be caused through random data is 0.625. The probability for the pattern to be not caused through random data is 0.375. For season 5 and 6 with the actual starting times (00:00) the pattern did fit for 45 episodes and didn't fit for 2 episodes (Appendices A). For the calculation the probability mass function is used [4]. The probability, that it is solely a result of chance that the pattern did fit with at least 45 episodes is: Url: http://s9.postimg.org/ss30roncf/IMG3.pngThis is above 5 sigma that is used in particle physics for the declaration of a discovery [5]. That shows, that the existence of the found pattern is ten million times likelier than its non-existence. For three other series the pattern was tested for, the pattern did fit 66 times and didn't fit 1 time.Every alteration of this text would decrease the understandability. An explanation of basic probability calculations for laymen (not part of the paper):A pattern has to be proved in a scientific and comprehensible way. In particle physics a pattern is proved, if there is only one chance in nearly two million that a random fluctuation would yield the result [5]. To prove this, the probability mass function is used [4]. Assuming there is a coin that can be tossed over and over again. The coin has a probability for heads with 0.5 and a probability for tails with 0.5. Now gadget A is switched on, the coin is tossed 100 times and there are 52 times heads and 48 times tails. The probability, that a difference that is not larger than two coin tosses (48/52, 49/51, 50/50, 51/49, 52/48) can be caused out of chance is: Url: http://s4.postimg.org/3yn1efxzh/IMG1.pngTherefore there is no proof that gadget A influences coin tosses. Now gadget B is turned on. The coin is tossed again 100 times and there are now 3 times heads and 97 times tails. The probability, that there are not more than 3 times heads (3/97, 2/98, 1/99, 0/100) out of chance is: Url: http://s22.postimg.org/akd4ahmnl/IMG2.pngThe probability that 3 times heads and 97 times tails can be caused out of chance is lower than 1:10^6, therefore this is a proof that the result is not only a random fluctuation [5].Edited by Dubreuil, : Equations addedEdited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

From the OP this thread is not about reviewing the paper in question. It is a lament that there are no venues for review of papers on Intelligent Design, outside the loony fringe journals like BIO-Complexity which doesn't help a paper's credibility any since the real science world is going to laugh in a hysterically vigorous manner at anything published in that rag.The fact that even the Discovery Institute's own flagship peer-review publication rejected this paper using some lame excuse about it not being "biology", when DI has quite often violated that unspoken standard, should tell us that even the least prestigious Intelligent Design journal on the planet thinks this paper is cra ... lacking.I agree with the author that attempting a review of this paper in this forum would not be productive since it appears the bulk of the submission is a vacuous attempt to resurrect the illogic of numerology into a sciencey sounding screed and since, after due consideration and analysis, the conclusion would most probably match that which BIO-Complexity has already reached.The lament having been voiced in the OP leaves little for this membership to contribute and having reached, and passed, its zenith in the one post I suggest this thread be closed so we can try to forget it ever happened. Edited by AZPaul3, : Oh, big boo-boo. Naughty AZPaul, naughty, naughty.