Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How the Scientific "Consensus" on Evolution is Maintained
1 view
Skip to first unread message
KL
May 3, 2012, 3:59:53 AM5/3/12
to
Opdatering! En underlig udvikling på denne historie. Et 14 min. filmklip
forklarer det hele i et nøddeskal.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/how_the_scienti059011.html
Granville Sewell April 26
As ENV readers may know, I wrote an article, "A Second Look at the Second Law,"
that was reviewed and accepted by Applied Mathematics Letters (AML) in 2011, then
withdrawn at the last minute because "our editors simply found that it does not
consist of the kind of content that we are interested in publishing." The
circumstances surrounding the withdrawal were so embarrassing to the publisher
that it ended up paying $10,000 in damages and publishing an apology in the
journal. But they still refused to publish the article itself.
Now the Mathematical Intelligencer (MI) has published a rebuttal to my
(unpublished, remember!) article. So I submitted a letter to the editor (which, I
was told, are normally published "as received," if they are published) responding
to the MI article, but my letter was sent to a referee anyway, and rejected, so I
will not be allowed to defend myself, even in a letter to the editor. One of the
referee's comments is especially interesting:
----------
So the AML article was not worthy of publication, even after it was accepted, an
article slamming the unpublished article is worth publishing, but not any
response to that. Well, now you have an illustration of how the scientific
"consensus" on certain controversial issues is maintained. And if you watch the
video you will understand why, on this issue at least, suppression of all
opposing viewpoints is so necessary to maintain the consensus.
----------
x-postet
forklarer det hele i et nøddeskal.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/how_the_scienti059011.html
Granville Sewell April 26
As ENV readers may know, I wrote an article, "A Second Look at the Second Law,"
that was reviewed and accepted by Applied Mathematics Letters (AML) in 2011, then
withdrawn at the last minute because "our editors simply found that it does not
consist of the kind of content that we are interested in publishing." The
circumstances surrounding the withdrawal were so embarrassing to the publisher
that it ended up paying $10,000 in damages and publishing an apology in the
journal. But they still refused to publish the article itself.
Now the Mathematical Intelligencer (MI) has published a rebuttal to my
(unpublished, remember!) article. So I submitted a letter to the editor (which, I
was told, are normally published "as received," if they are published) responding
to the MI article, but my letter was sent to a referee anyway, and rejected, so I
will not be allowed to defend myself, even in a letter to the editor. One of the
referee's comments is especially interesting:
----------
So the AML article was not worthy of publication, even after it was accepted, an
article slamming the unpublished article is worth publishing, but not any
response to that. Well, now you have an illustration of how the scientific
"consensus" on certain controversial issues is maintained. And if you watch the
video you will understand why, on this issue at least, suppression of all
opposing viewpoints is so necessary to maintain the consensus.
----------
x-postet
Martin Andersen
May 4, 2012, 9:40:10 AM5/4/12
to
solen og der bliver udstrålet energi.
Termodynamikkens anden lov forholder sig til entropi tilvækst i lukkede
systemer.
Derfor giver det ikke mening at henvise til den lov når man ser på et
åbent system, som Jorden eller biosfæren specifikt
Selv kreationister siger man ikke skal bruge det argument:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
KL er ligeglad.
KL
May 4, 2012, 1:48:34 PM5/4/12
to
"Martin Andersen" <d...@ikke.nu> wrote in message
news:4fa3dc3b$0$287$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
Pointen er - ifølge Sewell - at den anden lov gælder i alle systemer. Så du
filmklippet?
"Of course, one can still argue that the spectacular increase in order seen on
Earth does not violate the second law because what has happened here is not
really extremely improbable. Not many people are willing to make this argument,
however; in fact, the claim that the second law does not apply to open systems
was invented in an attempt to avoid having to make this argument."
Kilde: http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
> Derfor giver det ikke mening at henvise til den lov når man ser på et åbent
> system, som Jorden eller biosfæren specifikt
>
> Selv kreationister siger man ikke skal bruge det argument:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
>
Hvilket argument på den website henviser du til?
> KL er ligeglad.
news:4fa3dc3b$0$287$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
filmklippet?
"Of course, one can still argue that the spectacular increase in order seen on
Earth does not violate the second law because what has happened here is not
really extremely improbable. Not many people are willing to make this argument,
however; in fact, the claim that the second law does not apply to open systems
was invented in an attempt to avoid having to make this argument."
Kilde: http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
> Derfor giver det ikke mening at henvise til den lov når man ser på et åbent
> system, som Jorden eller biosfæren specifikt
>
> Selv kreationister siger man ikke skal bruge det argument:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
>
> KL er ligeglad.
0 new messages