Peer Review
Steffen Whorli
"peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
"mainstream" will be forever excluded.
Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
these exclusionist journals. Hence, they can say that Biblical
creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they
open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
sham.
AC
Steffen Whorli <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote:
> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
> It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
> system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
> be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
> back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
Is it possible that your knowledge on the topic of "peer review" is limited?
Maybe your biggest problem, Steffen, is that you make judgements on things
which you have almost no knowledge of.
> Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
> these exclusionist journals.
Really? Could you please provide some evidence for this claim?
> Hence, they can say that Biblical
> creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
> these journals.
That's not why we say they're not scientists. They're not scientists
because whatever it is they practice, it isn't science. The fact that they
rarely if ever try to get anything submitted to a peer-reviewed journal only
confirms that they know what they're doing isn't science.
> It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
> why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they
> open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
> sham.
Again, perhaps if you had the vaguest idea of how peer review works, you
might not make silly statements like this.
--
Aaron Clausen
John Harshman
Steffen Whorli wrote:
> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
Yes.
> It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
> system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
> be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
> back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
That depends on the reviewers and editors. Some reviewers bend over
backwards to be scrupulously fair. Then again, there are some who take
the opportunity to indulge in personal vendettas. Like any system it has
its flaws, but it's better than any alternative that's been proposed so far.
> Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
> these exclusionist journals.
Can you back that up in any way? Some "creation scientists" have indeed
published in peer reviewed journals. A few have even published papers
that had something to do with "creation science". But generally, they
don't submit to journals and so we can't tell if they would be purposely
excluded if they did. I suspect you had no factual basis for your
statement. True?
> Hence, they can say that Biblical
> creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
> these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
> why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they
> open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
> sham.
Please specify which submissions by creation scientists have been
rejected by peer reviewed journals. It's fine to make an assertion, but
you need to support it with something.
If I may speculate, I bet you are right that most creationist papers
would be rejected if submitted. But this would have to do with the poor
quality of the science rather than anything else. It would be difficult
to do a good creationist paper, because all the evidence is so seriously
against such a position that you would have to make some sort of invalid
jump from evidence to conclusion, or distort the evidence itself, or
some such thing. And this is what we commonly observe in non-peer
reviewed creationist publications.
Christopher Denney
$0I6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net:
> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
It's mostly that you have other people check your work before you make a
fool of yourself in public. Though my understanding is that there is a
bit of 'old boys network' involved in some publications now days.
> It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
> system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
> be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
> back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
Not forever, you just have to work harder, be even more scientific than
they. The peer review isn't there to prevent publication of ideas, it's
to prevent the publication of ideas that haven't been sufficiently
checked.
> Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
> these exclusionist journals. Hence, they can say that Biblical
> creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
> these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
> why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they
> open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
> sham.
Nope, the reason they are excluded is mainly that they don't submit work
to be published, secondarily they aren't doing science.
Just because someone calls themself a scientist, doesn't mean they are
one, they actually have to follow the scientific method and all that
stuff. That is to say, they have to earn it.
Say, for instance, a publication has a posted set of rules for accepting
papers. If one follows all the rules and is rejected, there might be room
for complaint; if one doesn't follow all the rules, however, there is NO
room for complaint.
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
I value the friend who for me finds time on his calendar, but I cherish
the friend who for me does not consult the calendar. -Robert Brault
Grinder
"Steffen Whorli" <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:JYFjb.20295$0I6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
Others more intimately involved with the process will be able
to comment with authority.
I can think one familiar example where an outsider penetrated
the good-ol'boy network, as you put it. A century ago Albert
Einstein was a patent clerk, persuing his theories in his spare
time. By 1909 the world recognized him as a profound thinker
because of those theories. How did he do it?
He wrote a number of detailed descriptions of his theories
which were distributed. He offered criticism about prevaling
theories and considered criticisms of his own from, well, his
peers. Well before Einstein's notoriety, his ideas opened the
door to many of the leading physicists of the time.
I cannot disprove there is conspiracy against the common man
within the scientific establishment, I just don't believe it.
Steffen Whorli
Steffen Whorli
Is there a list available anywhere of what articles are accepeted /
rejected for any given journal? Otherwise we'll be left with simple
logic- if there are no Creation works being published, it follows that
this is becuase the reviewers are biased in favor of evolutionism.
John Harshman
Steffen Whorli wrote:
No. The list of those accepted is of course the list of those published,
which is easily available.
> Otherwise we'll be left with simple
> logic- if there are no Creation works being published, it follows that
> this is becuase the reviewers are biased in favor of evolutionism.
No, that doesn't follow. You have made an unjustified leap. What if no
creationist works are submitted? What if creationist works are submitted
but all of them are unacceptable for other reasons? I've been a reviewer
many times, but I've never reviewed a creationist paper. I wonder if
anyone who reads this has ever been sent a creationist paper for review
by any journal.
Here are some observations:
1) "Creation scientists" mostly don't do science. It's not just that
they aren't published in peer reviewed journals; mostly they aren't
published anywhere. What "creation scientists" mostly do is search the
published literature for stuff they think shows some flaw in
evolutionary theory, and then they write about it.
2) If a "creation scientist" did submit a paper to a journal and it was
rejected, don't you think you would hear about it? It would be trumpeted
as proof of the journal's bias. The fact that you don't hear about such
things suggests to me that such events are vanishingly rare.
Steffen Whorli
Yes, but Einstein was expanding the established order, not trying to
overturn it.
Christopher Denney
@nwrdny01.gnilink.net:
How do you figure?
It sounds like you have now idea what Mr. Einstein had to say, or what
the prevailing thought was, at the time.
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
What other dungeon is so dark as one's own heart! What jailer is as
inexorable as one's self! -Nathaniel Hawthorne, novelist and short-story
writer (1804-1864)
Christopher Denney
As I said above:
"...they actually have to follow the scientific method...
they have to earn it."
Also from t.o FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
<QUOTE>
To answer the question "What is the scientific method?" - very simply
(and somewhat naively), the scientific method is a program for research
which comprises four main steps. In practice these steps follow more of a
logical order than a chronological one:
1. Make observations.
2. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
4. Search for confirmations of the predictions;
if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back
to step (2).
<ENDQUOTE>
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
Appreciation is a wonderful thing; it makes what is excellent in others
belong to us as well. -Voltaire
observa
"Steffen Whorli" <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:JYFjb.20295$0I6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
Correct.
> It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
> system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
> be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
> back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
Not correct. If the study is backed up by sound research, and the
conclusions match that research, and the research methodology.........
In other words substantial critiquing. Some of which will result in
acceptance, a larger number are requested to change something, and a large
number are rejected.
But The Theory of Relativity, Plate Tectonics, Quantum Theory, etc, received
their first outings in peer reviewed journals. The authors, at the time,
were no-bodies, and their conclusions were understood as potentially
world-shaking. And were accepted.
> Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
> these exclusionist journals. Hence, they can say that Biblical
> creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
> these journals.
They may be scientists. But note my above point about good research. The
findings must be based on evidence. Not assertions.
>It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
> why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they
> open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
> sham.
They will open their pages when the "creation scientists" carry out good
science. I'm not sure which, but either Behe or Dembski are accepted as
reputable scientists (in their specialist areas).
Alan Jeffery
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003
observa
He was not "expanding the established order". He was throwing a spanner in
the works. According to Newtonian mechanics everything moved in nice neat
ellipses, and was where saw it. Then along came dear old Albert, and said
that it just ain't so. You may think that star is where you can see it, but
if there's a gravity well between us and it, it's actually somewhere else
entirely. And he also allowed for something called black holes, that
"conventional" astrophysists found very hard to swallow. In fact, although
black holes had been speculated about since the concept of gravity was
thought of, they were avoided as something just too weird to get your head
around.
Jon Fleming
I think not.
>Otherwise we'll be left with simple
>logic- if there are no Creation works being published, it follows that
>this is becuase the reviewers are biased in favor of evolutionism.
No, it does not follow. There are many other possible reasons. For
example:
If no Creationist works are submitted for publication, then no
Creationist works will be published.
If Creationist works are submitted for publication but are all
unacceptable because they do not meet the previously established and
published standards of the journals, then biased reviewers are not the
reason for no Creationist works being published.
You have something to learn about logic. You are handicapped because
your sources are not logical, and often purposefully are illogical.
If you, or your sources, want to claim that "Biblical Creation
scientists are purposley excluded from publishing in these
exclusionist journals", then it is up to _you_ to provide evidence
that your assertion is true (it is not up to us to prove it is not
true) _and_ you need to provide evidence for at least two things:
1. You need to provide evidence the Creationists submit articles, AND
...
2. You need to provide evidence that these articles meet the
standards of the journals (almost all journals make their standards
and practices available on the Web) yet are rejected.
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Dana Tweedy
"Steffen Whorli" <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:JYFjb.20295$0I6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> "peer reviewed journals."
It's not an obsession, it's a convention of scientific investigation. Peer
reviewed journals are how scientists present their findings, and how they
communicate with other scientists.
as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
Essentially correct, but the real review comes once the article is
published. The pre-publication review is to insure that the paper meets
certian minimum standards of scientific procedure. This is done because
there is only a limited amount of space in any journal, and th editors must
be able to separate the "wheat from the chaff". Any paper that is published
must then run the gauntlet of other scientists (the "peers" of peer review)
who will examine the research and attempt to confirm or dispute the
findings. In short, the peer review comes AFTER the paper is published,
not primarily before.
> It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
> system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
> be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
> back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
That's the claim that "outsiders" often make, whenever they can't get their
ideas published due to poor science. In fact, theories outside the
mainstream are looked at with skepticisim, and are expected to provide
extraordinary evidence. However, non-mainstream theories can and DO get
published, as long as the scientists used proper scientific method, and the
evidence is sound. Plate Tectonics was once considered outside the
mainstream, now it is the mainstream. Einstein's ideas about relativity
were considered odd when first published. Creationist works by contrast,
are not excluded from publication, they aren't even submitted at all.
> Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
> these exclusionist journals.
Not true. Creationists don't even bother to submit their work to peer
review. They know their work is unscientific, and would never pass peer
review.
>
Hence, they can say that Biblical
> creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
> these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
> why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process.
That's too bad, because it's the peer review process that allows genuine
scientists to freely exchange information. Creationists avoid peer review
because they know they can't pass close scrutiny by genuine scientists.
> Until they
> open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
> sham.
The doors are open, the Creationists simply lack the ability to cross the
threshold.
DJT
Grinder
> Yes, but Einstein was expanding the established order, not
trying to
> overturn it.
"observa" wrote:
> He was not "expanding the established order". He was
throwing a spanner in
> the works. According to Newtonian mechanics everything moved
in nice neat
> ellipses, and was where saw it. Then along came dear old
Albert, and said
> that it just ain't so. You may think that star is where you
can see it, but
> if there's a gravity well between us and it, it's actually
somewhere else
> entirely. And he also allowed for something called black
holes, that
> "conventional" astrophysists found very hard to swallow. In
fact, although
> black holes had been speculated about since the concept of
gravity was
> thought of, they were avoided as something just too weird to
get your head
> around.
In terms of the theories, I think the reality is somewhere in
between. In the early 1900s, theoretical physicists were
certainly aware of the shortcomings of their theories. There
were a variety of attempts to construct a model for the
observations, partly successful, but incomplete. Einstein
infused the thinking with his ideas and, to use your word,
expand everyone's understanding of nature's construction.
This period of time was revolutionary for physics and
physicists -- not a simple ingestion of fact, as you suggest.
Many ideas were tried, tested and broken in seeking the better
ones. Undoubtedly there were moments where ideas were rejected
from ego alone. Fortunately, the force of an idea typically
outlives passion.
___
One part of the tale, left unmentioned, is what Einstein *did
not* do. That list must be endless, but there is one specific
quality I'm thinking of.
Einstein apparently did not think that established theorists
were conspiring to destroy God in the minds of mortal men.
This is the most obvious distinction that I can see between him
and today's more prominent creationists.
Boikat
And how is that more logical then "No creationist has submitted a
creationist science article"?
Boikat
>
Boikat
> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
No. Peer review is a "test" to insure objectivity and procedure.
> It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
> system of the "good-ol'-boys."
Humans are involved, so that is always possible. However, if faulty logic
or procedures are used, that will eventually come to light as other
scientists atempt to replicate experiments.
> Those who are a part of the system will
> be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
> back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
Nope. Simply wrong.
> Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
> these exclusionist journals.
If they actually did science, they shouldn't have any problems.
> Hence, they can say that Biblical
> creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
> these journals.
No. Creation "scientists" are not scientists because they do not do
science.
> It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
> why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process.
Because you are biased, and ignorant of science.
> Until they
> open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
> sham.
Please state the "scientific theory of creation". Also, devise experiments
to thest the ToC, and make predictions, based upon the ToC. We await with
baited breath.
Boikat
>
Jon Fleming
<whorl...@nospam.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Yes, but Einstein was expanding the established order, not trying to
>overturn it.
BZZZZZZZZT!
Wrong.
Sorry.
Thank you for playing. Please accept this box containing the home
game, and exit stage left.
Johnny Bravo
<whorl...@nospam.net> wrote:
>Is there a list available anywhere of what articles are accepeted /
>rejected for any given journal? Otherwise we'll be left with simple
>logic- if there are no Creation works being published, it follows that
>this is becuase the reviewers are biased in favor of evolutionism.
I guess those damn reviewers are also biased against those who
believe the Earth is flat.
Do you believe the Earth is flat? If not, would you think that not
publishing papers assuming a flat Earth deserve to be published as
science?
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
AC
Huh? Obviously you don't even know that much about Einstein's work. It was
revolutionary, and thus extremely controversial.
--
Aaron Clausen
observa
"Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message
news:bmnh3...@enews1.newsguy.com...
I agree. But I was attempting to simplify things. I do think that the
astrophysical "establishment" had trouble with reaching the "logical"
conclusions from Einstein's work (Both Special and General Relativity)
Especially dear old Eddington, and he did tend to lead the pack at the time.
He was keen to carry out the experiment that established light bends around
a gravity well, but was unable to go with Chandrasekar and accept a star
could collapse to a singularity. And both came from Albert.
>
> This period of time was revolutionary for physics and
> physicists -- not a simple ingestion of fact, as you suggest.
> Many ideas were tried, tested and broken in seeking the better
> ones. Undoubtedly there were moments where ideas were rejected
> from ego alone. Fortunately, the force of an idea typically
> outlives passion.
>
I agree about the force of an idea. But I also accept that there is
friction, and a certain momentum needs to be built up. Consider how long it
took for Wegener's Plate Tectonics to become generally accepted among
geologists. And, when I was teaching geography in the early '80s, it was
still not generally taught in schools.
Alan Jeffery
> ___
>
> One part of the tale, left unmentioned, is what Einstein *did
> not* do. That list must be endless, but there is one specific
> quality I'm thinking of.
>
> Einstein apparently did not think that established theorists
> were conspiring to destroy God in the minds of mortal men.
> This is the most obvious distinction that I can see between him
> and today's more prominent creationists.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Pip R. Lagenta
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Steffen Whorli wrote:
[snip]
>
>> Otherwise we'll be left with simple
>> logic- if there are no Creation works being published, it follows that
>> this is becuase the reviewers are biased in favor of evolutionism.
>
>
>No, that doesn't follow. You have made an unjustified leap. What if no
>creationist works are submitted? What if creationist works are submitted
>but all of them are unacceptable for other reasons? I've been a reviewer
>many times, but I've never reviewed a creationist paper. I wonder if
>anyone who reads this has ever been sent a creationist paper for review
>by any journal.
>
>Here are some observations:
>
>1) "Creation scientists" mostly don't do science. It's not just that
>they aren't published in peer reviewed journals; mostly they aren't
>published anywhere. What "creation scientists" mostly do is search the
>published literature for stuff they think shows some flaw in
>evolutionary theory, and then they write about it.
I should point out that Glenn Morton was a creationist who did his
damnedest to do good science.
Glenn Morton's story may be found here:
<http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm>
[snip]
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Grinder
physics and
> > physicists -- not a simple ingestion of fact, as you
suggest.
> > Many ideas were tried, tested and broken in seeking the
better
> > ones. Undoubtedly there were moments where ideas were
rejected
> > from ego alone. Fortunately, the force of an idea
typically
> > outlives passion.
> I agree about the force of an idea. But I also accept that
there is
> friction, and a certain momentum needs to be built up.
Consider how long it
> took for Wegener's Plate Tectonics to become generally
accepted among
> geologists. And, when I was teaching geography in the early
'80s, it was
> still not generally taught in schools.
I'll hold with that. I probably would have trotted out
"inertia," but "friction" is a better metaphor.
The time scale with theoretical physics is such that Einstein
fully qualifies as "contemporary."
Ross Langerak
"Steffen Whorli" <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:JYFjb.20295$0I6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
called
> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that
other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
The purpose of a scientific journal is to present observations and
experimental results. The purpose of peer review is to check the
details: are there errors in math, was a control group needed, was the
statistical analysis performed correctly, can you actually get the
results from the experiment that was performed. They may also check to
see if similar work has already been published. If a theory is
presented in a scientific paper, it is usually accompanied by a
butt-load of evidence.
> It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
> system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system
will
> be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on
the
> back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
Again, it isn't the theories that are important; it's the evidence.
Reviewers are looking for errors in the paper that make the experiment
or analysis invalid. And unless I'm mistaken, scientific papers
usually aren't sent out for review with a name attached.
> Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing
iin
> these exclusionist journals. Hence, they can say that Biblical
> creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
> these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the
reason
> why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until
they
> open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are
a
> sham.
Or perhaps creationist papers really aren't up to the standard
required. Based on what I have read from creationists, I suspect the
quality of the creationist papers is the real issue.
Dave
<sarcasm>
I agree. I've always rejected peer-review science. It's a sham. Quantum
mechanics is rubbish. There are no such things as transistors. Anatomy is
rubbish. "Legs" are only a theory. I could go on. The list is endless.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, there is good empirical evidence that peer review works. Will
you ever need heart surgery? Would you prefer that your surgeon's methods
were subject to peer review or not?
Dave
--
Simplicity gives rise to irreducible complexity.
Pastor Salt
real facts so that they can ... um .... well ... maybe ... kinda ...
oh dear....i ve embarrassed myself ... *again*
welcome back Steffan ... we were missing ya buddy :-)
but you dont seem to have spent your time wisely. please try some *none*
creationist sites for some actual facts rather than these inspired ones you
keep spraying around.
Steve
kmbs57 at hotmail dot com
Earle Jones
Dave <d.p...@no.spam.at.all.mmb.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> Steffen Whorli wrote:
>
> > I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
> > "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> > scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> > scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> > wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
> > It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
> > system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
> > be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
> > back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> > "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
> > Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
> > these exclusionist journals. Hence, they can say that Biblical
> > creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
> > these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
> > why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they
> > open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
> > sham.
*
Could you give us some examples of papers that have been submitted by
creationists to peer-reviewed scientific journals that have been
rejected based on the creationist beliefs of the author?
Thanks,
earle
*
John H
>>
> Is there a list available anywhere of what articles are accepeted /
> rejected for any given journal? Otherwise we'll be left with simple
> logic- if there are no Creation works being published, it follows that
> this is becuase the reviewers are biased in favor of evolutionism.
>
I've never won the Nobel prize for anything, simple logic would
indicate...?
Daniel T.
> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
> It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
> system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
> be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
> back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
> Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
> these exclusionist journals. Hence, they can say that Biblical
> creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
> these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
> why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they
> open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
> sham.
Something to think about...
There was a time when everyone knew light was a wave, then along came
some nobody who worked in a patent office who said that they were all
wrong, light was actually a particle. Despite the fact that he was very
outside the mainstream, his paper was still published. He went on to
publish 3 other papers that same year (1905) all of them ground breaking
and very much against the status quo. Now the name "Einstein" is known
by probably every educated human on the planet...
Petrarch
"Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ryJjb.3542$7a4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I'm afraid you are mistaken, few journals use blind reviewing - probably
less than 5%. This is based on 20 yrs experience in scientific publication -
I've worked on over 100 journals in that time, none of which used blind
reviewing. I do know of some, though.
Ken Shaw
"observa" <obs...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:D%Hjb.181026$JA5.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Where were you teaching? My suburban Atlanta schools taught continental
drift in the mid to late 70's and I'm sure our school wasn't cutting edge.
Ken
Ken Shaw
"Steffen Whorli" <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:JYFjb.20295$0I6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
> system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
> be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
> back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
> these exclusionist journals. Hence, they can say that Biblical
> creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
> these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
> why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they
> open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
> sham.
>
The peer reviewed journals exist to help scientists working in common fields
to communicate with each other. The review process is an editorial tool used
to make sure the published articles are accurate and have no glaring
mistakes.
As I stated in another thread I have searched the web and found no journal
that rejects creatiomist articles outside of the review process and no
creationist has presented an actual article that was rejected for a reason
not having to do with the review process.
Ken
Marc Carter
> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct? It strikes me
> that the problem with this system is that it becomes a system of the
> "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will be able to get
> their work published with a congragulatory slap on the back, while those
> whose theories are outside the accepted scientific "mainstream" will be
> forever excluded. Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded
> from publishing iin these exclusionist journals. Hence, they can say
> that Biblical creationists are not scientists, because they are never
> published in these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and
> the reason why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process.
> Until they open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these
> journals are a sham.
(My turn!)
What makes peer review so important is that the people who do the review
possess at least one, and probably two, important qualities for
ferretting out error.
In the first place, the reviewers are the people who best know the
science. It doesn't have to do with "mainstream," but rather with
expertise in an area of inquiry. They know the methods, they know the
theories, and they're in the best position to judge whether or not a
submission is a contribution or not. In the main the judgements are made
with respect to how well the data are collected, and how well the data
support the theoretical point of the article.
The second quality is that the reviewers are likely (although not
necessarily, but certianly in my experience) people who *disagree* with
the author of the submission. They are experts; they have opinions, and
it is likely that a new piece of data is supporting a theory with which
the reviewers don't agree. To that extent, then, they are going to look
that much harder at the paper to make sure that the data are sound and
that the data do in fact support the position of the paper.
Peer review is essential if we're going to let science do what it does
best, which is eliminate error.
It is true, I think, that there are certain questions and certain
research "paradigms" that are more popular and are thus more likely to
be published, but that is not the main criterion. If you get a rejection
and the rejection is based on whether or not the work is "sexy enough,"
then often a discussion with the editor can get past that hurdle.
Creation "scientists," of course, are not excluded from publishing in
peer-reviewed journals because of who they are. Their work would be
rejected because it is not science.
Maybe one day science will change, but it will be the data that mandate
that change. Should creationists generate data
that require journal editors to re-think what is currently publishable,
then cool -- I'd expect to start seeing those papers. But inasmuch as
they have not generated data from hypotheses that follow from a
naturalist theory, they are not the sorts of things you'd find published in a science
journal. Science is naturalistic. Supernatural explanations don't
qualify.
I can pretty much assure you that there is no plot to exlude anything
that advances our understanding. That's what the journals are for: to
publish data and thought that advance our understanding of things. To
categorically reject anything that does that would be silly. So I cannot
believe that there is any organized plot to reject the data of anyone --
if those data are good.
Not too many years ago Bem & Honorton published a paper in a respected
journal in which they "showed" that there are replicable effects of ESP.
(The "Ganzfeld" effect.) It was later showed that they were wrong (to my level of
skeptical satisfaction, at any rate). But the fact is that they could
publish something that ran contrary to pretty much everything we know about
how the physical world works suggests that there is no plot. They had
dotted their i's and crossed their t's to the satisfaction of the
reveiwers, and regardless of the disbelief in the phenomenon and the general
level of pooh-pooh ness most scientists accord things like ESP, it was a
huge deal. The journal had to publish it because no one of the reviewers
could find fault with the data and the analysis (at the time). But you
can bet that it got a very chilly reception, and in spite of that, was
published.
So there is no club, there is no good-ol-boy's network, there is no plot to exclude research on any
topic, even if it is controversial. There *is* a requirement that the data be
good and advance our understanding of the natural world.
m
Andy Groves
> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
Yes.
> It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
> system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
> be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
> back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
Other people have already responded, but I will add my two cents.
You are speaking from a position of complete ignorance. I am on the
editorial board of one journal. I regularly review manuscripts for six
other journals, and still other journals less frequently. I also
review grants for the National Insitutes of Health.
If you think that "mainstream" scientists get their work published
with no more than a "congratulatory slap on the back", then you are
utterly mistaken. The vast majority of scientific papers are not
accepted without revision. In fact, I have not *ever* accepted a paper
- and I review at least one a month - without asking for some revision
from the authors. In some cases, I have rejected papers outright as
being unredeemably flawed.
I have *never* had a paper of mine accepted without being asked for
revision of some sort or another. Sometimes it's simply clarification,
sometimes extra experiments are required. I am presently trying to get
a study published that has been rejected four times from three
different journals. Hardly a congratulatory slap on the back.
Scientists are trained to think critically about their work. As a
result, they tend to think critically about everything - whether it is
their own work, their colleague's work, the California recall, global
warming or whatever. If you attend scientific meetings, you wil see
scientists criticizing each other's work all the time. Sometimes they
are just asking for clarification, or offering suggestions for more
experiments. Sometimes they are pointing out flaws. Sometimes they are
settling scores or trying to estabish that *they* were the ones to
make a particular discovery first. We're human, after all. But in most
cases, the primary focus is on what the data tells you. Which brings
me to.....
> Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
> these exclusionist journals. Hence, they can say that Biblical
> creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
> these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
> why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they
> open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
> sham.
First, do you have any evidence at all to suggest that biblical
creation scientists are excluded from publishing in mainstream
journals *simply because they are biblical creation scientists*? I
would be very doubtful of this.
There is a reason why creationists like Gish, Hovind (and to a lesser
extent) Johnson refuse to engage in written debate with scientists.
It's because once you take them out of an auditorium and strip away
their rhetoric and playing to the gallery, and expose their claims to
the scrutiny of scientific knowledge, their arguments are shown to be
worthless. Remeber that if you intend to overthrow a theory, you will
not only have to present data showing why your theory is right, but
you must also explain why the data (or interpretation of the data) for
the old theory is wrong.
Those are the rules, Steffen. That's how scientists do business. If
"creation scientists" want to compete on the same playing field, they
have to play by the same rules. They have to produce data, and
interpret their data with reference to the extant scientific
literature.
A few months back, a creationist on this group challenged a scientist
- Lilith - to a formal debate. I'm sure that someone can provide you
with the Google references if you want. It was not a pretty experience
for the creationist. His points were forensically dissected in the
light of current scientific literature, and he quickly gave up the
fight, complaining - rather like you, in fact - that he was being
deluged with evidence.
That's the problem with arguing against evolution, Steffen. If you
want to do it in a written format, you will have to be prepared to be
deluged with evidence. If your data can stand up to the test, it will
become accepted into the scientific literature. If not, then it will
be rejected - and deservedly so. So enough about conspiracy theories -
got data?
Andy
Sverker Johansson
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>Steffen Whorli wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
>>>scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
>>> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
>>>wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
>>>system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
>>>be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
>>>back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
>>>"mainstream" will be forever excluded.
>>
>>
>>
>>backwards to be scrupulously fair. Then again, there are some who take
>>the opportunity to indulge in personal vendettas. Like any system it has
>>its flaws, but it's better than any alternative that's been proposed so far.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>these exclusionist journals.
>>
>>
>>
>>published in peer reviewed journals. A few have even published papers
>>that had something to do with "creation science". But generally, they
>>don't submit to journals and so we can't tell if they would be purposely
>>excluded if they did. I suspect you had no factual basis for your
>>statement. True?
>>
>>
>>
>>>creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
>>>these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
>>>why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they
>>>open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
>>>sham.
>>
>>
>>
>>rejected by peer reviewed journals. It's fine to make an assertion, but
>>you need to support it with something.
>>
>>If I may speculate, I bet you are right that most creationist papers
>>would be rejected if submitted. But this would have to do with the poor
>>quality of the science rather than anything else. It would be difficult
>>to do a good creationist paper, because all the evidence is so seriously
>>against such a position that you would have to make some sort of invalid
>>jump from evidence to conclusion, or distort the evidence itself, or
>>some such thing. And this is what we commonly observe in non-peer
>>reviewed creationist publications.
>>
>
>
> rejected for any given journal? Otherwise we'll be left with simple
> logic- if there are no Creation works being published, it follows that
> this is becuase the reviewers are biased in favor of evolutionism.
>
Journals generally don't release such lists. I recall it was
investigated in the context on one of the court battles over
creationism some years ago, with the result that essentially
no creationist papers were submitted for review at all.
But in at least some fields, there are web sites where scientists
can post their articles for the world to see _before_ undergoing
peer review. For example, at http://arxiv.org you'll find such
"preprints" in physics and astronomy. I've seen a handful
of creationist articles there, at least one of which did get
published in a regular peer-reviewed journal. IOW, in
astronomy at least the fraction of creationist articles passing
peer review is not small. This is strong evidence against
their being systematically censored.
You'll find the published creationist article here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9806280
--
Best regards,
Sverker Johansson
-----------------------------
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
------------------------------
Mark VandeWettering
> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that
> other scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
The usual process is something like this:
1. A paper submission is received by the journal.
2. The journal editors take multiple copies and send this paper
out to reviewers. These reviewers are normally skilled
and knowledgeable practitioners of the field in question.
3. These reviewers evaluate the paper, usually according to
guidelines which are provided by the journal. This evaluation
may include requests for greater clarification, additional
references to existing work, and perhaps a suggestion as to
whether the paper should be published.
4. This may spawn a response from the journal asking for changes,
a rejection or an acceptance.
> It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
> system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
> be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
> back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
The problem with creationists isn't that their theories aren't outside
the accepted scientific mainstream: it's that they do not have any theories
at all. It is entirely proper for reviewers for scientific journals to
refuse them on that basis.
But very few journals receive any papers for publication anyway, so the
point is rather moot. Creationists prefer to publish in their own vanity
presses.
> Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
> these exclusionist journals.
They are excluded only because they a) typically don't even try to publish
in such journals and b) fail to meet reasonable standards.
> Hence, they can say that Biblical creationists are not scientists,
> because they are never published in these journals.
They aren't scientists because they don't do science. They don't write about
science because they do do science.
> It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason why I place
> little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they open their
> doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a sham.
What would be a sham would be to allow the publication of papers by people
who won't even take the time to count their own ribs.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
> Grinder wrote:
>
>> "Steffen Whorli" <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:JYFjb.20295$0I6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>>
>>
>> so called
>>
>>>"peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is
>>
>> that a
>>
>>>scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and
>>
>> that other
>>
>>> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it,
>>
>> deciding
>>
>>>wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
>>
>>
>>
>> becomes a
>>
>>>system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the
>>
>> system will
>>
>>>be able to get their work published with a congragulatory
>>
>> slap on the
>>
>>>back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted
>>
>> scientific
>>
>>>"mainstream" will be forever excluded.
>>
>>
>>
>> publishing iin
>>
>>
>> Biblical
>>
>>>creationists are not scientists, because they are never
>>
>> published in
>>
>>
>> the reason
>>
>>>why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process.
>>
>> Until they
>>
>>>open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these
>>
>> journals are a
>>
>>>sham.
>>
>>
>> to comment with authority.
>>
>> I can think one familiar example where an outsider penetrated
>> the good-ol'boy network, as you put it. A century ago Albert
>> Einstein was a patent clerk, persuing his theories in his spare
>> time. By 1909 the world recognized him as a profound thinker
>> because of those theories. How did he do it?
>>
>> He wrote a number of detailed descriptions of his theories
>> which were distributed. He offered criticism about prevaling
>> theories and considered criticisms of his own from, well, his
>> peers. Well before Einstein's notoriety, his ideas opened the
>> door to many of the leading physicists of the time.
>>
>> I cannot disprove there is conspiracy against the common man
>> within the scientific establishment, I just don't believe it.
>>
>>
> overturn it.
*Boggle* We are talking about Albert Einstein here, right?
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
> Is there a list available anywhere of what articles are accepeted /
> rejected for any given journal? Otherwise we'll be left with simple
> logic- if there are no Creation works being published, it follows that
> this is becuase the reviewers are biased in favor of evolutionism.
Or perhaps that creationists aren't submitting papers.
Creationists often make this claim, but what's lacking is any evidence
that any such papers were submitted and rejected. Informal queries to
many journals usually indicates that very few if any such papers are
ever submitted.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
> Christopher Denney wrote:
>> Steffen Whorli <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote in news:JYFjb.20295
>> $0I6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net:
>>
>>
>>>I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
>>>"peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
>>>scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
>>>scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
>>>wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
>>
>>
>> fool of yourself in public. Though my understanding is that there is a
>> bit of 'old boys network' involved in some publications now days.
>>
>>>It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
>>>system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
>>>be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
>>>back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
>>>"mainstream" will be forever excluded.
>>
>>
>> they. The peer review isn't there to prevent publication of ideas, it's
>> to prevent the publication of ideas that haven't been sufficiently
>> checked.
>>
>>
>>>Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
>>>these exclusionist journals. Hence, they can say that Biblical
>>>creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
>>>these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
>>>why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they
>>>open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
>>>sham.
>>
>>
>> to be published, secondarily they aren't doing science.
>> Just because someone calls themself a scientist, doesn't mean they are
>> one, they actually have to follow the scientific method and all that
>> stuff. That is to say, they have to earn it.
>> Say, for instance, a publication has a posted set of rules for accepting
>> papers. If one follows all the rules and is rejected, there might be room
>> for complaint; if one doesn't follow all the rules, however, there is NO
>> room for complaint.
>>
> What is the criteria for being called a "scientist"?
Scientists do science.
This is in stark contrast to creationists.
Mark
rossum
<whorl...@nospam.net> wrote:
>John Harshman wrote:
>
>>
>> Steffen Whorli wrote:
>>
>>
[snip]
>
>Is there a list available anywhere of what articles are accepeted /
>rejected for any given journal? Otherwise we'll be left with simple
>logic- if there are no Creation works being published, it follows that
>this is becuase the reviewers are biased in favor of evolutionism.
The list of articles published is the Contents pages of the Journals
in question. To find out the rejected articles I suggest you contact
the Creation Scientists themselves and ask them for copies of their
rejection letters from the Journals. If they are being rejected then
they should have rejection letters. If they cannot provide rejection
letters then they are not being rejected.
rossum
--
The Ultimate Truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth
Larry C. Lyons
>>
>>>back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
>>>"mainstream" will be forever excluded.
>>
>>Again, it isn't the theories that are important; it's the evidence.
>>Reviewers are looking for errors in the paper that make the experiment
>>or analysis invalid. And unless I'm mistaken, scientific papers
>>usually aren't sent out for review with a name attached.
>>
>
>
> I'm afraid you are mistaken, few journals use blind reviewing - probably
> less than 5%. This is based on 20 yrs experience in scientific publication -
> I've worked on over 100 journals in that time, none of which used blind
> reviewing. I do know of some, though.
>
>
Lets see, I've both submitted articles and reviewed articles for a
number of Psychology journals. My wife works for several medical
journals. All of them used blind peer review. Several of my associates
and friends in different disciplines have reported the same. I don't
know where you get your paucity of blind reviews, but in the disciplines
I follow, blind peer review is the norm rather than the exception.
larry
--
Larry C. Lyons
========================================================
Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
========================================================
Chaos, Panic and Disorder. My work here is done.
Larry C. Lyons
Many journals, especially the mainstream American Psychology Association
and the American Psychology Society sponsored journals publish their
rejection rates. To me it gives the published authors a bit of an ego
boost to know that their articles made the cut.
observa
"Ken Shaw" <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:PwSjb.182345$0v4.14...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
NZ. A small school in the Hawkes Bay (eastern North Island). I was the
only specialist geographer in the school. And I had done no geology, and
neither had the other teachers. Which may explain why Plate Tectonics
wasn't well covered. That is, AFAICR, we taught that Africa and South
America were once joined, (witness the close shape match, see) but did not
cover the mechanism of their separation. I learnt my plate tectonics from
Scientific American.
Alan Jeffery
>
> Ken
David Iain Greig
PNAS. :P
--D.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steffen Whorli
<whorl...@nospam.net>:
<snip>
>Is there a list available anywhere of what articles are accepeted /
>rejected for any given journal? Otherwise we'll be left with simple
>logic- if there are no Creation works being published, it follows that
>this is becuase the reviewers are biased in favor of evolutionism.
Ummm...I hate to break this to you, but that is a non
sequitur (i.e., a logical fallacy). Did it ever occur to you
that perhaps there *is* no "creation science" which actually
uses the methods of science? Are you aware that at least one
"creation science" institution (the ICR) *requires* its
members to sign a pledge that they will suppress any
evidence which contradicts a literal interpretation of the
Bible? Do you understand why this would make it difficult to
get published in an honest scientific journal, which
requires that all relevant evidence be taken into account,
no matter *whose* ox gets gored?
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
>Grinder wrote:
<snip>
>> I can think one familiar example where an outsider penetrated
>> the good-ol'boy network, as you put it. A century ago Albert
>> Einstein was a patent clerk, persuing his theories in his spare
>> time. By 1909 the world recognized him as a profound thinker
>> because of those theories. How did he do it?
>>
>> He wrote a number of detailed descriptions of his theories
>> which were distributed. He offered criticism about prevaling
>> theories and considered criticisms of his own from, well, his
>> peers. Well before Einstein's notoriety, his ideas opened the
>> door to many of the leading physicists of the time.
>>
>> I cannot disprove there is conspiracy against the common man
>> within the scientific establishment, I just don't believe it.
>Yes, but Einstein was expanding the established order, not trying to
>overturn it.
You really need to read a bit about "classical physics" and
the physicists who were among the "elite" at the time
Einstein (and Planck, and others) presented the works which
overturned (word chosen with care) nearly all of physics. It
was a genuine revolution, and it certainly didn't lack for
battles and acrimony. The difference between what the "Young
Turks" did at the beginning of the twentieth century and
what the ICR and their ilk are doing today is the difference
between doing actual science, with evidence presented for
peer review, and signing a pledge that some knowledge is by
definition "off-limits", as the ICR does. The latter isn't
science.
Bigdakine
>From: Steffen Whorli whorl...@nospam.net
>Date: 10/16/03 2:24 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <PMGjb.17496$zw4...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
>
>Grinder wrote:
>
>> "Steffen Whorli" <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:JYFjb.20295$0I6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>>
>>>I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with
>>
>> so called
>>
>>>"peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is
>>
>> that a
>>
>>>scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and
>>
>> that other
>>
>>> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it,
>>
>> deciding
>>
>>>wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
>>
>>
>>
>> becomes a
>>
>>>system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the
>>
>> system will
>>
>>>be able to get their work published with a congragulatory
>>
>> slap on the
>>
>>>back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted
>>
>> scientific
>>
>>>"mainstream" will be forever excluded.
>>
>>
>>
>> publishing iin
>>
>>>these exclusionist journals. Hence, they can say that
>>
>> Biblical
>>
>>>creationists are not scientists, because they are never
>>
>> published in
>>
>>>these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and
>>
>> the reason
>>
>>>why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process.
>>
>> Until they
>>
>>>open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these
>>
>> journals are a
>>
>>>sham.
>>
>>
>> to comment with authority.
>>
>> the good-ol'boy network, as you put it. A century ago Albert
>> Einstein was a patent clerk, persuing his theories in his spare
>> time. By 1909 the world recognized him as a profound thinker
>> because of those theories. How did he do it?
>>
>> He wrote a number of detailed descriptions of his theories
>> which were distributed. He offered criticism about prevaling
>> theories and considered criticisms of his own from, well, his
>> peers. Well before Einstein's notoriety, his ideas opened the
>> door to many of the leading physicists of the time.
>>
>> I cannot disprove there is conspiracy against the common man
>> within the scientific establishment, I just don't believe it.
>>
>>
>Yes, but Einstein was expanding the established order, not trying to
>overturn it.
>
Steve,
Let me give you a salient piece of advice.
*Everything you know about science is wrong*
Sorry, but thats the way it is. You, henceforth, would be well served not to
make any more statements from ingrained biases or ignorance.
The *established order* of the day was wrong. Most of the important physicist
of the time understood that there were several problems that could not be
solved with a Newtonian program. Einstein developed relativity as a way out of
the dilemma.
If developing one of the most succesful theories of all time, *is what you call
expanding the established order*, then you really have no idea as to what
science is or what it is useful for.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Ananda Gupta
>Otherwise we'll be left with simple
>logic- if there are no Creation works being published, it follows that
>this is becuase the reviewers are biased in favor of evolutionism.
.... this isn't exactly "simple logic." Suppose I write letters to the
editor of a newspaper and they never get published. Does it follow by
"simple logic" that the editor is biased against the views I'm expressing?
Of course not. Perhaps my letters are full of profanity. Perhaps they are
rambling and incoherent. Perhaps my letters are okay but other people have
written letters that make the same point but are better written. And
perhaps the editor is biased against me. What you claim "follows from
simple logic" is just one possibility among many, and I suspect that if you
knew more about how peer review works, you would conclude that the reason
creation science articles don't show up often, if at all, in most journals
has nothing to do with bias and everything to do with quality science.
ASG
AC
No no no! Pay attention. We're talking about Edgar Einstein, inventor of
the rotating hamster wheel.
--
Aaron Clausen
Mark Isaak
<whorl...@nospam.net> wrote:
>I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
>"peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
>scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
>wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
No. See Andy Groves' response especially.
Another thing to consider is that scientists don't get points for
patting each other on the back. The big fame and money comes from
discovering things that are new and different. If you look at the
Nobel prizes, you may notice that a lot of them are given for proving
that previous scientists were wrong.
Once you publish, your work is fair game for anybody to tear apart.
And you can be confident that other scientists will try to do so. You
have to be ready to defend what you say with evidence that others will
accept. Peer review helps with this. Despite the discomforts of
having to rewrite big chunks of your paper, you can be more confident,
when you're done, that you have provided good support for your
conclusions.
>Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
>these exclusionist journals.
Not true. Several creationists have had their creationist ideas
published in major peer-reviewed science journals. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA325.html , especially point 3.
Relavent to a question you asked in another post, note that only 18
out of appx. 135,000 papers submitted to a sampling of science
journals were on creationist topics. I believe most of these were
rejected due to their poor quality, not because they were creationist.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mitchell Coffey
> "Steffen Whorli" <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:JYFjb.20295$0I6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> so called
> > "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is
> that a
> > scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and
> that other
> > scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it,
> deciding
> > wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
>
> becomes a
> > system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the
> system will
> > be able to get their work published with a congragulatory
> slap on the
> > back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted
> scientific
> > "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
>
> publishing iin
> Biblical
> > creationists are not scientists, because they are never
> published in
> > these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and
> the reason
> > why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process.
> Until they
> > open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these
> journals are a
> > sham.
>
> Others more intimately involved with the process will be able
> to comment with authority.
>
> I can think one familiar example where an outsider penetrated
> the good-ol'boy network, as you put it. A century ago Albert
> Einstein was a patent clerk, persuing his theories in his spare
> time. By 1909 the world recognized him as a profound thinker
> because of those theories. How did he do it?
>
> He wrote a number of detailed descriptions of his theories
> which were distributed. He offered criticism about prevaling
> theories and considered criticisms of his own from, well, his
> peers. Well before Einstein's notoriety, his ideas opened the
> door to many of the leading physicists of the time.
And Einstein achieved this dispite being a Jew and a socialist,
neither being credentials that endeared you to the European
establishment of the time.
And he wasn't even thirty.
Mitchell Coffey
John Wilkins
Solomon Einstein (1869-1932), taxidermist in Blackbury. Had a lot of
time to think while his hand was up a badger.
_Johnny and the Dead_, p89
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
John Wilkins
> "Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
...
> > I can think one familiar example where an outsider penetrated
> > the good-ol'boy network, as you put it. A century ago Albert
> > Einstein was a patent clerk, persuing his theories in his spare
> > time. By 1909 the world recognized him as a profound thinker
> > because of those theories. How did he do it?
> >
> > He wrote a number of detailed descriptions of his theories
> > which were distributed. He offered criticism about prevaling
> > theories and considered criticisms of his own from, well, his
> > peers. Well before Einstein's notoriety, his ideas opened the
> > door to many of the leading physicists of the time.
> [snip]
>
> And Einstein achieved this dispite being a Jew and a socialist,
> neither being credentials that endeared you to the European
> establishment of the time.
>
> And he wasn't even thirty.
>
Physicists don't tend to do much after thirty, not in the sense of great
leaps forward (of course they extend and elaborate ideas well into their
dotage).
Unlike philosophers, who just get going at 50 (right? right?)
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au | asymptotically approaching 50
Ross Langerak
"AC" <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbp1fja...@clausen.alberni.net...
You're mistaken, George Hertz invented the hamster wheel.
John Harshman
Mark Isaak wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:29:00 +0000 (UTC), Steffen Whorli
> <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
>>"peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
>>scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
>> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
>>wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
>>
>
> No. See Andy Groves' response especially.
I am confused because Andy answered "yes" to this question. Steffen is
essentially correct here. Reviewers' comments are the major guide to the
editor's decision on whether or not to accept, accept with revisions,
reject with encouragement to resubmit, or just plain reject. The editor
can always make a decision that goes against the reviewers, but that's
unusual. Especially since the reviewers are generally chosen as experts
in the particular subject of the paper, and probably know a lot more
about it than the editor.
Mark, do you know of any instances in which creationists claim to have
been denied publication in a peer-reviewed journal? (Presumably this
would be attributed to a conspiracy against creationism, at least by the
claimant.)
Failing that, do you know of any general claims by creationists that
there is a conspiracy to deny them publication?
AC
Ross Langerak <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> "AC" <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbp1fja...@clausen.alberni.net...
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:04:09 +0000 (UTC),
>> Mark VandeWettering <wett...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> >
>> > *Boggle* We are talking about Albert Einstein here, right?
>>
>> No no no! Pay attention. We're talking about Edgar Einstein,
> inventor of
>> the rotating hamster wheel.
>
> You're mistaken, George Hertz invented the hamster wheel.
Oh yeah! Well, if you're so damn smart, then what did Edgar Einstein
invent then, eh?
--
Aaron Clausen
Dick C
> In article <JYFjb.20295$0I6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, Steffen Whorli
wrote:
>
>> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
>> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
>> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that
>> other scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
>> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
>
> The usual process is something like this:
>
> 1. A paper submission is received by the journal.
> 2. The journal editors take multiple copies and send this paper
> out to reviewers. These reviewers are normally skilled
> and knowledgeable practitioners of the field in question.
> 3. These reviewers evaluate the paper, usually according to
> guidelines which are provided by the journal. This evaluation
> may include requests for greater clarification, additional
> references to existing work, and perhaps a suggestion as to
> whether the paper should be published.
> 4. This may spawn a response from the journal asking for changes,
> a rejection or an acceptance.
All these replies are interesting and informative. However, they leave
what is really important and interesting about peer review. The new
ideas, data, and theories get published for the world to see. And even
though they are published they are not accepted as being the truth. The
ideas are tested, argued about and tested some more. Even if the person
who wrote the article is a top flight, and well known scientist, his ideas
are not accepted until they have been well tested.
I have looked at journals such as nature. And while I usually can't follow
what is in the articles, I have little trouble reading the letters section.
And that is where things get really interesting. :-).
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@localnet.com
Dick C
And before that, the hamsters had a hell of a hard time with the non
revolving hamster wheel. It wasn't until the invention of the rungs,
by Sir Neville (Hamster lover) Newton, that the lifespan of the
hamster increased beyond a few weeks.
Ed Conrad
<Larry...@someoneElse.Invalid> wrote:
<
> SNIP
<
Peer Review is when vested interests
protect vested interests.
<
I think I made that clear a few years ago.
<
It really should be called Phew Review,
and all parties concerned should wear
a clothespin on their nose.
<
Thank you, and have a pleasant day.
<
Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com
<
AC
Dick C <dic...@localnet.boo.com> wrote:
> AC wrote in talk.origins
>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:04:09 +0000 (UTC),
>> Mark VandeWettering <wett...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> In article <PMGjb.17496$zw4...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, Steffen Whorli
> wrote:
>>>> Grinder wrote:
>>>> Yes, but Einstein was expanding the established order, not trying to
>>>> overturn it.
>>>
>>> *Boggle* We are talking about Albert Einstein here, right?
>>
>> No no no! Pay attention. We're talking about Edgar Einstein, inventor
> of
>> the rotating hamster wheel.
>
> And before that, the hamsters had a hell of a hard time with the non
> revolving hamster wheel. It wasn't until the invention of the rungs,
> by Sir Neville (Hamster lover) Newton, that the lifespan of the
> hamster increased beyond a few weeks.
The betterment of hamsters' lives everywhere just fills me with such
emotion. What would we have done without great pioneers like Edgar Einstein
and Neville Newton I'll never know.
--
Aaron Clausen
catshark
Wilkins) wrote:
[...]
>> >> Yes, but Einstein was expanding the established order, not trying to
>> >> overturn it.
>> >
>> > *Boggle* We are talking about Albert Einstein here, right?
>>
>> No no no! Pay attention. We're talking about Edgar Einstein, inventor of
>> the rotating hamster wheel.
>
>Solomon Einstein (1869-1932), taxidermist in Blackbury. Had a lot of
>time to think while his hand was up a badger.
As in female police officer?
>
>_Johnny and the Dead_, p89
I'd believe that of Pterry . . .
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
catshark
Wilkins) wrote:
>Mitchell Coffey <MitC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
>...
>> > I can think one familiar example where an outsider penetrated
>> > the good-ol'boy network, as you put it. A century ago Albert
>> > Einstein was a patent clerk, persuing his theories in his spare
>> > time. By 1909 the world recognized him as a profound thinker
>> > because of those theories. How did he do it?
>> >
>> > He wrote a number of detailed descriptions of his theories
>> > which were distributed. He offered criticism about prevaling
>> > theories and considered criticisms of his own from, well, his
>> > peers. Well before Einstein's notoriety, his ideas opened the
>> > door to many of the leading physicists of the time.
>> [snip]
>>
>> And Einstein achieved this dispite being a Jew and a socialist,
>> neither being credentials that endeared you to the European
>> establishment of the time.
>>
>> And he wasn't even thirty.
>>
>Physicists don't tend to do much after thirty, not in the sense of great
>leaps forward (of course they extend and elaborate ideas well into their
>dotage).
>
>Unlike philosophers, who just get going at 50 (right? right?)
<Pats hand>
Sure, John, sure . . .
<Tucks shawl in around shoulders>
Lawyers, on the other hand . . .
Mark Isaak
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:29:00 +0000 (UTC), Steffen Whorli
>> <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
>>>"peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
>>>scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
>>> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
>>>wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
>>
>> No. See Andy Groves' response especially.
>
>I am confused because Andy answered "yes" to this question.
Um, I was illustrating the need for peer review by demostrating how
stupid mistakes get into stuff otherwise. Yeah, that's what happened.
Of course you, Steffan, and Andy are correct about the above.
>Mark, do you know of any instances in which creationists claim to have
>been denied publication in a peer-reviewed journal? (Presumably this
>would be attributed to a conspiracy against creationism, at least by the
>claimant.)
Not offhand. I vaguely recall that a creationist from t.o. many, many
years ago complained that his paper was rejected. The only detail
that comes to mind is that the paper was much longer than the journal
normally publishes, so its rejection was not a surprise.
>Failing that, do you know of any general claims by creationists that
>there is a conspiracy to deny them publication?
Someone else in this thread found the following:
Morris, Henry M., June 1998. Bigotry in Science. _Back To Genesis_
114a, http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-114a.htm
Bigdakine
>From: wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins)
>Date: 10/17/03 8:02 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <1g318rg.1b710kh8xabizN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>
>
>Mitchell Coffey <MitC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
>...
>> > I can think one familiar example where an outsider penetrated
>> > the good-ol'boy network, as you put it. A century ago Albert
>> > Einstein was a patent clerk, persuing his theories in his spare
>> > time. By 1909 the world recognized him as a profound thinker
>> > because of those theories. How did he do it?
>> >
>> > He wrote a number of detailed descriptions of his theories
>> > which were distributed. He offered criticism about prevaling
>> > theories and considered criticisms of his own from, well, his
>> > peers. Well before Einstein's notoriety, his ideas opened the
>> > door to many of the leading physicists of the time.
>> [snip]
>>
>> And Einstein achieved this dispite being a Jew and a socialist,
>> neither being credentials that endeared you to the European
>> establishment of the time.
>>
>> And he wasn't even thirty.
>>
>Physicists don't tend to do much after thirty, not in the sense of great
>leaps forward (of course they extend and elaborate ideas well into their
>dotage).
Well, excusssee meeee...
>
>Unlike philosophers, who just get going at 50 (right? right?)
>--
Gee, why would you say that?
Bigdakine
>From: MitC...@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey)
>Date: 10/17/03 7:05 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <a766a589.03101...@posting.google.com>
And he didn't even have a job at a university.
Grinder
I thought he invented the exorbitant rental fee and the sport
of cross-country airport running.
Bigdakine
>From: Dick C dic...@localnet.boo.com
>Date: 10/18/03 5:59 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns94185D08C223...@216.168.3.50>
Sometimes Nature and Science are too conservative. They tend to *err* in that
direction. OTOH, there are a good many reputable scientific journals. Its my
experience, and that of my many peers with whom I'm acquainted, in that if
you're rejected by one journal for whatever reasons, another one will take it
if it has merit. If you get two or three rejections, you should start
entertaining the possibility you've messed up or are simply not communicating
effectively.
observa
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1g318rg.1b710kh8xabizN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> Mitchell Coffey <MitC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
> ...
> > > I can think one familiar example where an outsider penetrated
> > > the good-ol'boy network, as you put it. A century ago Albert
> > > Einstein was a patent clerk, persuing his theories in his spare
> > > time. By 1909 the world recognized him as a profound thinker
> > > because of those theories. How did he do it?
> > >
> > > He wrote a number of detailed descriptions of his theories
> > > which were distributed. He offered criticism about prevaling
> > > theories and considered criticisms of his own from, well, his
> > > peers. Well before Einstein's notoriety, his ideas opened the
> > > door to many of the leading physicists of the time.
> > [snip]
> >
> > And Einstein achieved this dispite being a Jew and a socialist,
> > neither being credentials that endeared you to the European
> > establishment of the time.
> >
> > And he wasn't even thirty.
> >
> Physicists don't tend to do much after thirty, not in the sense of great
> leaps forward (of course they extend and elaborate ideas well into their
> dotage).
>
> Unlike philosophers, who just get going at 50 (right? right?)
Do you want some form of confirmation? Going....where, exactly?
Alan Jeffery
> --
> John Wilkins wilkins.id.au | asymptotically approaching 50
> For long you live and high you fly,
> and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
> and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
>
Daniel Ensign
<snip>
> It is true, I think, that there are certain questions and certain
> research "paradigms" that are more popular and are thus more likely to
> be published, but that is not the main criterion. If you get a rejection
> and the rejection is based on whether or not the work is "sexy enough,"
> then often a discussion with the editor can get past that hurdle.
On the other hand, even given a really sharp article about some topic,
it may not belong in a particular journal. Sometimes, as a friend of
mine says, you have to publish in the _Journal of Less Common Metals_.
--
Dan Ensign
"Never trust the man in the blue trenchcoat,
never drive a car when you're dead."
--Tom Waits, "Telephone Call from Istanbul"
Frank J
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> >
> > Steffen Whorli wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
> >>"peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> >>scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> >> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> >>wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
> >>system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
> >>be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
> >>back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> >>"mainstream" will be forever excluded.
> >
> >
> >
> > backwards to be scrupulously fair. Then again, there are some who take
> > the opportunity to indulge in personal vendettas. Like any system it has
> > its flaws, but it's better than any alternative that's been proposed so far.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
> >>these exclusionist journals.
> >
> >
> >
> > published in peer reviewed journals. A few have even published papers
> > that had something to do with "creation science". But generally, they
> > don't submit to journals and so we can't tell if they would be purposely
> > excluded if they did. I suspect you had no factual basis for your
> > statement. True?
> >
> >
> >>Hence, they can say that Biblical
> >>creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
> >>these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
> >>why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they
> >>open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
> >>sham.
> >
> >
> >
> > rejected by peer reviewed journals. It's fine to make an assertion, but
> > you need to support it with something.
> >
> > If I may speculate, I bet you are right that most creationist papers
> > would be rejected if submitted. But this would have to do with the poor
> > quality of the science rather than anything else. It would be difficult
> > to do a good creationist paper, because all the evidence is so seriously
> > against such a position that you would have to make some sort of invalid
> > jump from evidence to conclusion, or distort the evidence itself, or
> > some such thing. And this is what we commonly observe in non-peer
> > reviewed creationist publications.
> >
>
> Is there a list available anywhere of what articles are accepeted /
> this is becuase the reviewers are biased in favor of evolutionism.
First, you need to define what you mean by "Creation." Don't bother
with bait-and-switch definitions, the ID advocates are much better at
it than you can ever dream of. One of them, William Dembski, admitted
that he doesn't even bother submitting papers, and concentrates on
writing pop-pseudoscience books that misrepresent science to a
gullible public. Dembski is undoubtedly aware, and has essentially
admitted it in so many words, that the reason no alternate theory to
evolution gets publiushed is because there is none.
But allow me to define "Creation" for you. Thousands of scientists
believe that they are publishing findings on God's Creation when they
publish articles supporting evolution. If there were an alternate
theory for God's creation, they would gladly publish evidence to
support that one instead. Thus there are works on Creation being
published in the peer-review literature - and no bias in favor of your
caricature of "evolutionism."
Glenn
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:38c5d0dd.03101...@posting.google.com...
> Steffen Whorli <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<awGjb.17491$zw4....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
> > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is there a list available anywhere of what articles are accepeted /
> > rejected for any given journal? Otherwise we'll be left with simple
> > logic- if there are no Creation works being published, it follows that
> > this is becuase the reviewers are biased in favor of evolutionism.
>
>
> First, you need to define what you mean by "Creation." Don't bother
> with bait-and-switch definitions, the ID advocates are much better at
> it than you can ever dream of. One of them, William Dembski, admitted
> that he doesn't even bother submitting papers, and concentrates on
> writing pop-pseudoscience books that misrepresent science to a
> gullible public. Dembski is undoubtedly aware, and has essentially
> admitted it in so many words, that the reason no alternate theory to
> evolution gets publiushed is because there is none.
>
http://www.txscience.org/files/dembski-baylor.htm
snip
John Wilkins
observa
let's hope the journey is fun.
Alan Jeffery
>
> --
> John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
> For long you live and high you fly,
> and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
> and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
>
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Grinder"
<gri...@no.spam.maam.com>:
>> You're mistaken, George Hertz invented the hamster wheel.
>
>I thought he invented the exorbitant rental fee and the sport
>of cross-country airport running.
No, no, that was *Avis* Hertz! *George* Hertz invented the
5-wheel "megacycle".
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
John Wilkins
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:16:56 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Grinder"
> <gri...@no.spam.maam.com>:
>
> >> You're mistaken, George Hertz invented the hamster wheel.
> >
> >I thought he invented the exorbitant rental fee and the sport
> >of cross-country airport running.
>
> No, no, that was *Avis* Hertz! *George* Hertz invented the
> 5-wheel "megacycle".
In his spare time he played in a rock band. Fans called these gig'a
Hertz.
Bobby D. Bryant
> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct? It strikes me
> that the problem with this system is that it becomes a system of the
> "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will be able to get
> their work published with a congragulatory slap on the back, while those
> whose theories are outside the accepted scientific "mainstream" will be
> forever excluded.
Yeah, you could assume that. Or you could look at what actually happens
instead.
Are you unaware that science is chock full of controversy? That
scientists publish articles that disagree with each other all the time?
The purpose of peer review is to make sure the submitters have done their
homework and avoided glaring errors of fact or reasoning.
Also, the most common result of rejection is to clean up the problems and
submit again.
> Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
> these exclusionist journals.
Name three instances.
> Hence, they can say that Biblical creationists are not scientists,
> because they are never published in these journals.
No, they're not scientists because they're ignorant of science and they
let their religious beliefs trump what little evidence they _are_ aware
of.
> It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason why I place little
> to no value in the "peer" review process.
Well, maybe someday you'll get a clue.
> Until they open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these
> journals are a sham.
The doors are open. All the BCSs need to do is submit their papers, and
take their lumps like everyone else if they haven't got their facts and
reasoning straight.
Of course, if they had their facts and reasoning straight they wouldn't be
BCSs, now would they.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> Is there a list available anywhere of what articles are accepeted /
> rejected for any given journal?
You can find a list of the accepted ones in the table of contents...
> Otherwise we'll be left with simple logic- if there are no Creation
> works being published, it follows that this is becuase the reviewers are
> biased in favor of evolutionism.
That's not "simple" logic, it's flawed logic. Are creationists actually
submitting papers? Are they submitting papers that amount to more than
the handwaving we see in their Web sites and Usenet posts?
There are lots of reasons other than blind prejudice that could easily
explain the lack of creationist papers in peer-reviewed journals.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Steffen Whorli <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote in news:JYFjb.20295
> $0I6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net:
>
>> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
>> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
>> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
>> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
>> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
>
> It's mostly that you have other people check your work before you make a
> fool of yourself in public. Though my understanding is that there is a
> bit of 'old boys network' involved in some publications now days.
Fortunately, most fields have a large number of relevant journals that you
can submit to if one is ruled by a GOBN.
>> It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
>> system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
>> be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
>> back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
>> "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
>
> Not forever, you just have to work harder, be even more scientific than
> they. The peer review isn't there to prevent publication of ideas, it's
> to prevent the publication of ideas that haven't been sufficiently
> checked.
Think what a simple peer review might have done to save Behe's reputation.
Bobby D. Bryant
> In article <PMGjb.17496$zw4...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, Steffen Whorli wrote:
>> Yes, but Einstein was expanding the established order, not trying to
>> overturn it.
>
> *Boggle* We are talking about Albert Einstein here, right?
Presumably Steffan thinks "the established order" is "the evil atheist
conspiracy" rather than "the prevailing view among scientists".
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ryJjb.3542$7a4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Again, it isn't the theories that are important; it's the evidence.
>> Reviewers are looking for errors in the paper that make the experiment
>> or analysis invalid. And unless I'm mistaken, scientific papers
>> usually aren't sent out for review with a name attached.
>>
> I'm afraid you are mistaken, few journals use blind reviewing -
> probably less than 5%. This is based on 20 yrs experience in scientific
> publication - I've worked on over 100 journals in that time, none of
> which used blind reviewing. I do know of some, though.
In my field there are some blind-review conferences and journals, but
there is a great deal of skepticism that the blinding actually works, due
to the tendency to heavily cite your own previous work and that of your
co-workers.
Bobby D. Bryant
> All these replies are interesting and informative. However, they leave
> what is really important and interesting about peer review. The new
> ideas, data, and theories get published for the world to see. And even
> though they are published they are not accepted as being the truth. The
> ideas are tested, argued about and tested some more. Even if the person
> who wrote the article is a top flight, and well known scientist, his
> ideas are not accepted until they have been well tested.
> I have looked at journals such as nature. And while I usually can't
> follow what is in the articles, I have little trouble reading the
> letters section. And that is where things get really interesting. :-).
Yes, science is a dialog, and is arguably "done" in journals and
conferences even more so than in laboratories and behind telescopes.
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:29:00 +0000 (UTC), Steffen Whorli
> <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
>> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
>> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
>> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
>> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
>
> No. See Andy Groves' response especially.
>
> Another thing to consider is that scientists don't get points for
> patting each other on the back. The big fame and money comes from
> discovering things that are new and different. If you look at the Nobel
> prizes, you may notice that a lot of them are given for proving that
> previous scientists were wrong.
>
> Once you publish, your work is fair game for anybody to tear apart. And
> you can be confident that other scientists will try to do so. You have
> to be ready to defend what you say with evidence that others will
> accept. Peer review helps with this. Despite the discomforts of having
> to rewrite big chunks of your paper, you can be more confident, when
> you're done, that you have provided good support for your conclusions.
Yes, here is how it really happens:
In the November 10 _Astrophysical Journal_, Cornell University emeritus
professor Martin Harwit suggests that the orbital angular momentum of
light could convey new information about celestial bodies -- information
unavailable by looking just a color and polarization. "The paper was
manly meant to be provocative," he says. "People are flabbergasted that
this should even be possible."
[Quoted from the November 2003 _Scientific American_, p. 22.]
Doesn't sound like any don't-rock-the-boat policy kept _him_ from
publishing.
But really, if anyone wonders why creationists aren't getting published in
the science rags, all you have to do is look at the bunkum they publish on
their Web sites and in their not-peer-reviewed books. If you want to know
what a hypothetical peer reviewer might say, just quote the stuff here and
see what the t.o. gurus say about it. Stuff that's riddled with factual
and logical flaws simply doesn't belong in a scientific journal.
And if they've got science-quality stuff, why aren't they publishing
_that_ on their Web sites instead of the ill-informed and illogical stuff
they actually do publish?
The sad fact is that rigorous science showed that their basic notions
about the world were wrong by at least 200 years ago. They are left with
a choice between getting rigorous vs. keeping their religious beliefs, and
they have chosen the latter. Everything relevant to the issue of peer
review follows from that and that alone.
If they wanted to do science they could; the problem is that they already
know that science will lead them where they don't want to go. So to
maintain their political posture it's much more convenient to _pretend_ to
do science and profess martyrdom w.r.t. real science.
Mitchell Coffey
> Mitchell Coffey <MitC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
> ...
> > > I can think one familiar example where an outsider penetrated
> > > the good-ol'boy network, as you put it. A century ago Albert
> > > Einstein was a patent clerk, persuing his theories in his spare
> > > time. By 1909 the world recognized him as a profound thinker
> > > because of those theories. How did he do it?
> > >
> > > He wrote a number of detailed descriptions of his theories
> > > which were distributed. He offered criticism about prevaling
> > > theories and considered criticisms of his own from, well, his
> > > peers. Well before Einstein's notoriety, his ideas opened the
> > > door to many of the leading physicists of the time.
> > [snip]
> >
> > And Einstein achieved this dispite being a Jew and a socialist,
> > neither being credentials that endeared you to the European
> > establishment of the time.
> >
> > And he wasn't even thirty.
> >
> Physicists don't tend to do much after thirty, not in the sense of great
> leaps forward (of course they extend and elaborate ideas well into their
> dotage).
>
> Unlike philosophers, who just get going at 50 (right? right?)
Absolutely.
Mitchell Coffey
Bobby D. Bryant
>>From: MitC...@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey)
>> And Einstein achieved this dispite being a Jew and a socialist, neither
>> being credentials that endeared you to the European establishment of
>> the time.
>>
>> And he wasn't even thirty.
>
> And he didn't even have a job at a university.
Worse, he didn't comb his hair!
John Wilkins
And he liked *vanilla* icecream.
Frank J
There's still ARN. And your point is?
Daniel Harper
> AC <tao...@alberni.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:04:09 +0000 (UTC), Mark VandeWettering
>> <wett...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > In article <PMGjb.17496$zw4...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, Steffen Whorli
>> > wrote:
>> >> Grinder wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "Steffen Whorli" <whorl...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> >>> news:JYFjb.20295$0I6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>> >>>
>> >>>>I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so
>> >>>>called "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is
>> >>>>that a scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and
>> >>>>that other scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it,
>> >>>>deciding wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
>> >>>>system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system
>> >>>>will be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap
>> >>>>on the back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted
>> >>>>scientific "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing
>> >>>>iin these exclusionist journals. Hence, they can say that Biblical
>> >>>>creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
>> >>>>these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the
>> >>>>reason why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Until they open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these
>> >>>> journals are a sham.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> Others more intimately involved with the process will be able to
>> >>> comment with authority.
>> >>>
>> >>> I can think one familiar example where an outsider penetrated the
>> >>> good-ol'boy network, as you put it. A century ago Albert Einstein
>> >>> was a patent clerk, persuing his theories in his spare time. By
>> >>> 1909 the world recognized him as a profound thinker because of those
>> >>> theories. How did he do it?
>> >>>
>> >>> He wrote a number of detailed descriptions of his theories which
>> >>> were distributed. He offered criticism about prevaling theories and
>> >>> considered criticisms of his own from, well, his peers. Well before
>> >>> Einstein's notoriety, his ideas opened the door to many of the
>> >>> leading physicists of the time.
>> >>>
>> >>> I cannot disprove there is conspiracy against the common man within
>> >>> the scientific establishment, I just don't believe it.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> Yes, but Einstein was expanding the established order, not trying to
>> >> overturn it.
>> >
>> > *Boggle* We are talking about Albert Einstein here, right?
>>
>> No no no! Pay attention. We're talking about Edgar Einstein, inventor
>> of the rotating hamster wheel.
>
> Solomon Einstein (1869-1932), taxidermist in Blackbury. Had a lot of time
> to think while his hand was up a badger.
>
> _Johnny and the Dead_, p89
Or Bob Einstein. Better known as "Super Dave" Osborne. Now _that's_ a part
of the pseudoscientific establishment that I'd like to see more often!
--
...and it is my belief that no greater good has ever befallen you in this city
than my service to my God. [...] Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness
brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and that state.
Plato, quoting Socrates, from The _Apology_
--Daniel Harper
Tedd
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:16:56 +0000 (UTC), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Grinder"
> > <gri...@no.spam.maam.com>:
> >
> > >> You're mistaken, George Hertz invented the hamster wheel.
> > >
> > >I thought he invented the exorbitant rental fee and the sport
> > >of cross-country airport running.
> >
> > No, no, that was *Avis* Hertz! *George* Hertz invented the
> > 5-wheel "megacycle".
>
> In his spare time he played in a rock band. Fans called these gig'a
> Hertz.
> --
ouch, that hertz.
David Jensen
<pan.2003.10.19....@mail.utexas.edu>:
I would not expect blind review to work particularly effectively except
for new authors in the field. Authors have styles (along with a fondness
for what they have done in the past that you noted) and reviewers who
are current on the literature are likely to recognize the style, if not
of the author then of the school that the author was taught in. It's not
just artists and novelists whose work is recognizable.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wil...@wehi.edu.au
(John Wilkins):
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:16:56 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Grinder"
>> <gri...@no.spam.maam.com>:
>>
>> >> You're mistaken, George Hertz invented the hamster wheel.
>> >
>> >I thought he invented the exorbitant rental fee and the sport
>> >of cross-country airport running.
>>
>> No, no, that was *Avis* Hertz! *George* Hertz invented the
>> 5-wheel "megacycle".
>
>In his spare time he played in a rock band. Fans called these gig'a
>Hertz.
And his girlfriend, Milli, wasn't very quick, but she was
*very* thorough. No need to ask *him* if the Earth moved...
darth_versive
> I am curious as to why the people here are so obsessed with so called
> "peer reviewed journals." as I understand it, the concept is that a
> scientist publishes his / her theories in these journals and that other
> scientists are supposed to review and comment upon it, deciding
> wheather to allow it to be published. Is this correct?
> It strikes me that the problem with this system is that it becomes a
> system of the "good-ol'-boys." Those who are a part of the system will
> be able to get their work published with a congragulatory slap on the
> back, while those whose theories are outside the accepted scientific
> "mainstream" will be forever excluded.
> Biblical Creation scientists are purposley excluded from publishing iin
> these exclusionist journals. Hence, they can say that Biblical
> creationists are not scientists, because they are never published in
> these journals. It's a nice bit of circular reasoning, and the reason
> why I place little to no value in the "peer" review process. Until they
> open their doors to Biblical Creation scientists these journals are a
> sham.
While I essentially agree with the responses of such people as Andy
Groves, Marc Carter, Dana Tweedy, and Mark Vandewettering, etc.,
regarding the nature of science and the peer-review process, I also
think that Steffen Whorli makes a point which is well-worth
considering.
Within the subjective perspective of many (if not all) creationists,
there is a coherent bias (or frame, or cognitive schema, to be more
technical) regarding the nature of science. I've observed pro-science
folks bash it for years, without much success (on its intended
targets, that is). It might be (and often is) called "invincible
ignorance." While particular individuals may, now and then, "see the
light" of reason, many others are sucked into this system of delusion
in the meantime.
A point I've been making for years (also without much success) is that
this aspect of subjectivity is a legitimate area of study in its own
right, being a natural (cognitive) phenomenon, and that it would be
wise for more pro-science folks to become curious about the structure
and function of such cognitive phenomena.
We are still very far from developing anything resembling a coherent
theory of subjectivity, but without enough people who are interested
in such a thing, it seems likely that such a theory will remain a
distant dream for generations to come. This may not seem so important
at first glance, but when you think about it, such things as the
Holocaust and the Cold War were essentially manifestations of
subjective perspectives. It may be that, in the end, the topic is
just too complex and psychologically disturbing to put upon a solid
scientific footing. But until it is seriously tried, one can't know
this for sure. And I would think that it's at least worth the effort.
Because, especially nowadays, few can deny that weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of the "invincibly ignorant" is a terrifying
prospect, regardless of how much of a threat creationists per se are
to the future of mankind.
Just something to think about. Don't mean to alarm anyone! ;)
DV
observa
> Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:17:00 +0000, Bigdakine wrote:
> >
> > >>From: MitC...@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey)
> >
> > >> And Einstein achieved this dispite being a Jew and a socialist,
neither
> > >> being credentials that endeared you to the European establishment of
> > >> the time.
> > >>
> > >> And he wasn't even thirty.
> > >
> > > And he didn't even have a job at a university.
> >
> > Worse, he didn't comb his hair!
>
> And he liked *vanilla* icecream.
Please provide a citation that indicates that Albert liked vanilla ice cream
(I prefer chocolate myself.).
Alan Jeffery
> --
> John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
> For long you live and high you fly,
> and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
> and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
>
Noelie S. Alito
news:pan.2003.10.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
Years back, some go-go headhunter released my husband's resume--
without the needed permission--to impress a potential customer about
the quality of the firm's stable. (Husband found this out via a third
party out in his specialized industry.) The headhunter had removed
the name from the top of the resume, but neglected to block out the
name under the single-author paper listed under the Publications
section. What a maroon!
Noelie
--
Hanlon's Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1g33bse.1e7buinaad2maN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> > Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:17:00 +0000, Bigdakine wrote:
> > >
> > > >>From: MitC...@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey)
> > >
> > > >> And Einstein achieved this dispite being a Jew and a socialist,
> neither
> > > >> being credentials that endeared you to the European establishment of
> > > >> the time.
> > > >>
> > > >> And he wasn't even thirty.
> > > >
> > > > And he didn't even have a job at a university.
> > >
> > > Worse, he didn't comb his hair!
> >
> > And he liked *vanilla* icecream.
>
> Please provide a citation that indicates that Albert liked vanilla ice cream
> (I prefer chocolate myself.).
>
<http://www.capitalcentury.com/1933.html>
"Einstein's first act in Princeton was to buy an ice-cream cone. He
stopped at the Baltimore ice cream parlor on Nassau Street and ordered
vanilla with chocolate sprinkles. An amazed divinity student, John
Lampe, watched a transaction that stayed with him the rest of his life.
"The great man looked at the cone, smiled at me ... and pointed his
thumb first at the cone and then at himself," Lampe later recalled."
See also
<http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Div/Winchester/jhhs/math/poetry/stein2.html>
observa
Strewth, you're a bloody mine of info, mate.
Alan Jeffery
> --
> John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
> For long you live and high you fly,
> and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
> and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
>
John Wilkins
I am a trivia sink. Information is attracted to me according to the
square of the usefulness of each item. This means I cannot remember
where I left my glasses, or to pick up the kids, but I know what
reification means...
observa
Does that give rise to the "Wilkins law of information attractiveness"?
Alan Jeffery
>
> --
> John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
> For long you live and high you fly,
> and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
> and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
>
John Wilkins
No, but the second law of infodynamics is that useful information tends
to avoid capture, while trivia tends to settle wherever it can.
Bill Hudson
wrote:
Really? I thought it was: There is no information transfer process the
sole result of which is the education of a willfully ignorant person.
--
Bill Hudson