Jump to content


Photo

Arguments Not To Use (Peer Review)


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 June 2017 - 06:53 AM

An argument NOT to use if you are creationist, is, "if evolution was true there would no longer be monkeys".

 

I find another argument pervasive on the internet even though it has a very clear flaw, that is the request; "why doesn't any creationist literature get accepted by peer review?"

 

This is such an obtuse red-herring. I don't know if it is just ignorance from evolutionists but it is common knowledge that anything ID or creationist is considered by the scientific community to be pseudo-science, meaning they will reject the paper immediately.

 

So it's like saying, "here is a loaded dice, it has a weight so you can't ever score a six, now please throw the dice and score a six".

 

For those evolutionists who are ignorant here it is very plainly for you; how can creationist literature be peer reviewed if they immediately reject it if they see it is creationist, and count it as "pseudo-science"?

 

Evolution scientists regard ID and creation as the God-of-the-gaps, because they employ methodological naturalism, meaning a scientific explanation has to be natural, without any inference to supernature.

 

Recently an article was rejected, a famous case, you may remember it. It was rejected because it appeared to give credit to intelligent design to a Creator or implied a creative inference rather than giving the credit to evolution. (Lol, kind of like being told off for giving the credit for the design of a differential in a car, to a designer.)

 

An obvious contradiction since clear design is evidence of a designer, but they don't let a little thing like the law of non-contradiction bother them in the evo-club, because they just want the explanation to be naturalistic.

 

Anyway, this paper caused a storm on twitter, people saying it was outrageous it was published as it was ID. So they rejected the paper. Basically because of the language barrier, I think they were Chinese and the translation of "creation" or creative acts, could have actually not referred to a Creator as such.

 

But have you noticed that they would have accepted the paper as passing peer review had they simple accredited the design of the human hand to evolution? So logically that PROVES that the same paper should be sound and regarded as valid if it favours an intelligent designer.

 

What does that tell you about peer review? It tells me that they don't have any intellectual integrity whatsoever - the correctness, truth-value, validity and soundness of the paper, didn't even come into play

 

Conclusion; Pretending peer review is some type of intellectually meritorious filter, is utter CODSWALLOP. If they value what the paper says, it shouldn't be relevant whether it's a designer or evolution, as long as the paper is correct and sound in it's argumentation.

 

STOP ARGUING that creation doesn't get accepted by peer review. It is like saying, "please show me you can run 100 metres fast at an official event," when you know they won't let me run the race because they have banned me. Does that prove I can't run 100 metres fast?

 

No indeed - it proves they won't let me run because I will beat them in the race. :acigar:



#2 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 June 2017 - 07:56 AM

on peer review:
What is clear is that the forms of peer review are protean. Probably the systems of every journal and every grant giving body are different in at least some detail; and some systems are very different. There may even be some journals using the following classic system. The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This pastiche—which is not far from systems I have seen used—is little better than tossing a coin, because the level of agreement between reviewers on whether a paper should be published is little better than you'd expect by chance.1
. . .
So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.
- Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.htm

There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof.
- Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.htm

i'll bet 100 to 1 that most of the above is in DIRECT relation to evolution.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#3 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 23 June 2017 - 12:09 PM

I find another argument pervasive on the internet even though it has a very clear flaw, that is the request; "why doesn't any creationist literature get accepted by peer review?"

 

This is such an obtuse red-herring. I don't know if it is just ignorance from evolutionists but it is common knowledge that anything ID or creationist is considered by the scientific community to be pseudo-science, meaning they will reject the paper immediately.

 

No indeed - it proves they won't let me run because I will beat them in the race. :acigar:

 

I think the idea of the argument is that they reject ID because it is pseudoscience. There have been philosophy of science peer review papers addressing why ID is pseudoscience, and many scientists have addressed the ID arguments outside of peer review.

 

As an analogy, creationism is like a flat earther complaining that the Geological Society of America refuses to even listen to their paper explaining why the Earth is flat, and their refusal to let the paper pass peer review proves that those main-stream geologists know the flat earth arguments are air-tight.

 

Conclusion; Pretending peer review is some type of intellectually meritorious filter, is utter CODSWALLOP. If they value what the paper says, it shouldn't be relevant whether it's a designer or evolution, as long as the paper is correct and sound in it's argumentation.

 

I don't know anyone that thinks peer review is perfect, but I don't know of a better way. Of course, ideally, the best way is to meticulously study the phenomena in question. However, no human has the time to become the foremost expert on everything. What peer review does is take experts on a given topic and have them battle it out. In the case of science the topic is centered around empirical evidence and theories not only accounting for known empirical evidence but also things like predictive power.

 

One of the things peer review does is mitigate individual bias, but peer review is less effective at mitigating group/institutional bias, which is what you are getting at - group bias against creationism. The way I see it, the biggest obstacle to that favoring creationism (besides the empirical evidence disproving creationism) is that the scientific community is made up of people with a lot of different views about religion and the supernatural. As a broad general rule of thumb about half of scientists fall somewhere on the atheist-agnostic spectrum, with the other half or so falling somewhere on the religious or spiritual spectrum. Of those that are religious (i.e. believe in some sort of supernatural God) every poll that I have ever seen shows that the vast majority (90+%) reject creationism and accept evolution. So exactly what type of bias are we witnessing? When the vast majority of religious scientists reject creationism I don't see the 'atheist scientists trying to destroy religion' idea as being valid, and the idea that virtually all the religious scientists are submitting to the atheists in order to keep their job is grasping at straws.

 

The vast majority of scientists, whether they are atheist or theist, accepts evolution. Those that oppose evolution seem to do so for inherently religious reasons, and this is seen in their alternative to evolution. The Christian creationists, if they reject the main-stream age of the Earth/universe, are YEC advocating that the world is only a few thousand years old. The Hindu creationists on the other hand (who also reject evolution), go in the complete opposite direction and say the world and mankind is much older than what main-stream science indicates. Both of these ideas from the Christian and Hindu creationists are grounded in their respected religious beliefs. I'm short on time, so I'll just end by saying I think it is clear there is a group bias going on, but I think it is much more salient on the creationist side than the evolutionist side.



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 June 2017 - 12:42 PM

Goku my point is that essentially evolutionists I come across REQUEST that I provide an evolutionary validation of creation. Which is a contradiction.

 

All that counts in a debate, which hopefully one day you will learn - is who is logically correct. Therefore nobody has disproven creation because a peer review accepted and passed an article that claims to disprove it. "You cannot be serious" - John McEnroe  (I mean do you seriously believe that they would have ever rejected such a paper? Had they said creation is false because cheese tasted good they would have passed the paper. I am cynical because I already have heard witness testimonies and evidence from the likes of Armitage which proves the attitude problem that exists in the mainstream.)

 

If creation is truly disproven, according to logical notation, that's another matter, but there are no empirical facts which disprove creation. Or did you mean disprove it is science? (be careful to make a delineation, the truth of creation is not disproven if it is not science, logically speaking) This can be explained very easily, for all of the fossils we find which are identical to today's living organisms, are what we would expect from created kinds.  

 

There isn't a line of evidence which can disprove creation. The problem occurs when people don't understand what "prove" and, "disprove" means. The only way you can disprove creation is by showing that in fact the Bombardier beetle doesn't exist as a created fully qualified, design. You would also have to show that biomimetics doesn't exist and that it is okay to break the law of non-contradiction by arguing that things that qualify as designed, didn't have a designer.

 

So logically I am happy creation isn't logically disproved, but I can understand if people that don't understand these things are convinced that peer review disproves creation. 

 

 

 

Goku: As an analogy, creationism is like a flat earther complaining that the Geological Society of America refuses to even listen to their paper explaining why the Earth is flat

 

So then it would be disingenuous for a round earther to request a paper that the GSA have approved of, would it not?

 

 

 

Goku: I think the idea of the argument is that they reject ID because it is pseudoscience. There have been philosophy of science peer review papers addressing why ID is pseudoscience, and many scientists have addressed the ID arguments outside of peer review.

 

And I can refute those papers, but it doesn't matter because peer reviewers wouldn't accept my refutation.

 

An argument that something isn't science, won't mean it is false, logically. But obviously I don't accept the argument by those reviewers that it isn't science. I believe is is evidently true that they reject ID because it IMPLIES God exists. The reason they reject ID isn't because it isn't science, it's because they know it will support God's existence. Basically it's an appeal to consequences. There are more issues here though which you tend to ignore, such as the fact that the descriptions of anatomical design in the body, by the likes of Paley and those Chinese folk that were rejected because they gave credit to a designer, those descriptions are anatomical factual.

 

Basically to reject the design in the anatomy and say it isn't there, isn't a scientific argument. I suggest the peer reviewers reject ID not because it isn't science because the features of design are anatomically factual (I can take you through it if you want) but for ulterior reasons. I am cynical, and it is reasonable for me to be cynical given what I have heard and even what I have experienced from evolutionary scientists, their very human, subjective arguments against God which seem to come from a passionate zeal rather than any genuine scientific motive.

 

So I would have to read the paper that says ID isn't science. I reckon it would be easy for me to refute that paper, the problem is if nobody agrees you refuted it, then even if you did logically refute it, they wouldn't accept that refutation anyway.

 

 

 

Goku: The vast majority of scientists, whether they are atheist or theist, accepts evolution. Those that oppose evolution seem to do so for inherently religious reasons,

 

I can't address all of the bald assertions in your lengthy paragraph but really you must surely know that the construction of an eyeball to give sight, isn't a matter of religion. To say that a giraffe, which starts life as a round shaped blastocyst with no bones or brain, and later on becomes the shape of a giraffe, is not evidence of the miraculous but of an evolution with no giraffe ancestors at all found, is religious faith in evolution. To say a Bombardier beetle and bat, which both have no ancestors, aren't examples of miraculous design but simply can be inferred to be the result of evolution because some bacteria became resistant in a lab, is a total belief in evolutions powers. 

 

If someone claims to be superman, is it reasonable Goku that they give a demonstration, not of their full strength but perhaps enough of their strength that shows us it is beyond human ability?

 

So then if evolution created all of these wonderful things, that defy even our own best intelligent design abilities, is it not reasonable to at least request a demonstration? For example if macro evolution is responsible for the parabolic jet of the Archer fish and the anemone-dart eating sea slug, and the Bombardier beetles convoluted chemistry, and even for people, and for eyes, and all sorts of organs and limbs, is it too much of a logical request to ask that it only shows us that it can create one novel piece of anatomy? A new organ which never existed before but that is now evolving? Yet all organs are complete as designs, and aren't evolving towards becoming anything else? So then if all you have is bacterial resistance, isn't that the same logically as saying that a man winning an arm wrestling competition is enough for us to infer he has the strength of superman?

 

I rest my case, ...your honour.

 

*A round of applause from the crowd*.

 

(You better call Saul, my lad.) ;)



#5 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 June 2017 - 12:50 PM

The vast majority of scientists, whether they are atheist or theist, accepts evolution.

i do too, but the question of god looms very large.

there is no doubt that species can create novel organs, and in a very short length of time.
this in itself pretty well proves evolution in my book.

the question of abiogenesis is an entirely different matter, and i believe this is what you are sidestepping in your quote

it's known that unicellular organisms already have all the information it needs to live, which means all of this co-evolved, and there is NO WAY it could have.
science will never figure it out, ever.
i also believe this is why the gradualist paradigm is being defended so vigorously.

so there you go, make of it what you will.

#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 June 2017 - 01:18 PM

 

 

What If: there is no doubt that species can create novel organs, and in a very short length of time.
this in itself pretty well proves evolution in my book.

 

But think of that statement in terms of a logical claim, so as to evaluate it;

 

-There is no doubt in my mind (subjective) that novel organs can be created by evolution in a short length of time (with no evidence that shows this whatsoever)

-Therefore this proves evolution.

 

That's pretty much an argument from credulity fallacy, which goes like this, "I believe X, therefore X is true".

 

It's just not the best critical thinking mate. It seems you're just stating that no matter what the facts are, you are going to say evolution is true and even proven?!?

 

What is the "proof" species can create novel organs? The same proof that a child can fly like Peter Pan.

 

:P



#7 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 June 2017 - 02:35 PM

What If: there is no doubt that species can create novel organs, and in a very short length of time.
this in itself pretty well proves evolution in my book.

 
But think of that statement in terms of a logical claim, so as to evaluate it;
 
-There is no doubt in my mind (subjective) that novel organs can be created by evolution in a short length of time (with no evidence that shows this whatsoever)
-Therefore this proves evolution.
 
That's pretty much an argument from credulity fallacy, which goes like this, "I believe X, therefore X is true".
 
It's just not the best critical thinking mate. It seems you're just stating that no matter what the facts are, you are going to say evolution is true and even proven?!?
 
What is the "proof" species can create novel organs? The same proof that a child can fly like Peter Pan.
 
:P

you can call it fallacious until your tongue falls out.
what is the proof?
right here:
Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
. . .
Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants.
- Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home -- ScienceDaily.htm

now, here is the kicker:
What is unique about this finding is that rapid evolution can affect not only the structure and function of a species, but also influence behavioral ecology and natural history,” says Irschick.
- ibid.

you cannot possibly ascribe the above to gradually accumulating mutations.
there is no way around it, the cells of these organisms are manufacturing these sequences.
i have no idea how this can happen except by a sandbox concept.

#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 June 2017 - 03:09 PM

 

 

What If: you cannot possibly ascribe the above to gradually accumulating mutations.
there is no way around it, the cells of these organisms are manufacturing these sequences.
i have no idea how this can happen except by a sandbox concept. 

 

The answer is the epigenome, as you know, the information was already built in so it wasn't evolution. Under certain environmental pressures the dormant switched, "off" information is switched on by the environmental pressure.

 

Don't we agree on that?

 

So then you believe this somehow means in the past a heart as an organ didn't exist but information for a heart was switched on when pressures for one to exist became high?

 

 

CMI: Astonishingly the DNA sequence of the newer lizards seemed identical to the parent population, which means that the genetic information for cecal valves (along with the other genetic information accounting for the other changes) was likely already present in these creatures (which means this gives no support for evolution, which requires new information that never existed before to arise through random processes).3 It was likely the environment itself which activated the needed information that caused the changes in subsequent populations.

As CMI’s Dr Don Batten commented; “It is significant that the cecal valve is present in other herbivorous lizards in this family (Lacertidae), so it is not surprising that this particular species has the ability to produce cecal valves under certain conditions.”

 

So I agree it can't have been slow evolution, and according to logic and critical thinking evolution can't have happened fast either, since it wasn't evolution but was adaptation based on already existing info, which you call, "evolution" which is fine by me as that's your belief, but to jump to the conclusion this means that Bombardier beetles, giraffes, fish and all organs just created themselves by instantly re-arranging DNA or some such thing, is not "proof".

 

That's all I'm saying, I'm not attacking your belief I just think you don't realise how strong the term, "proof" is.

 

I wish you valued logic more, my lad. Logic tells us this only proves that lizards with gizzards, that ended up without gizzards, when in the woods with the wizards, switched on their gizzards.



#9 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 June 2017 - 04:00 PM

The answer is the epigenome, as you know, the information was already built in so it wasn't evolution. Under certain environmental pressures the dormant switched, "off" information is switched on by the environmental pressure.
 
Don't we agree on that?

yes and no.
you are correct about the epigenome and information, but wrong about not calling it evolution.
it IS evolution, or have you forgotten blitz and his questions about organs?

 
 

So then you believe this somehow means in the past a heart as an organ didn't exist but information for a heart was switched on when pressures for one to exist became high?


i'm not sure about this.
the heart could easily be a part of the kernal of phyla.
then again the entire arrival of phyla could be epigenome driven.
it certainly seems chlorophyll and hemeglobin are closely related, the only difference between the two is chlorophyll has magnesium instead of iron.

 
 

CMI: Astonishingly the DNA sequence of the newer lizards seemed identical to the parent population, which means that the genetic information for cecal valves (along with the other genetic information accounting for the other changes) was likely already present in these creatures (which means this gives no support for evolution, which requires new information that never existed before to arise through random processes).[/size]3


yes, possibly transposons.
remember, the cell has to maintain functionality during this process
 

 It was likely the environment itself which activated the needed information that caused the changes in subsequent populations.[/size]
As CMI’s Dr Don Batten commented; “It is significant that the cecal valve is present in other herbivorous lizards in this family (Lacertidae), so it is not surprising that this particular species has the ability to produce cecal valves under certain conditions.”


which points directly to transposons and epigenetics.

 
 

So I agree it can't have been slow evolution, and according to logic and critical thinking evolution can't have happened fast either, since it wasn't evolution but was adaptation based on already existing info, which you call, "evolution" which is fine by me as that's your belief, but to jump to the conclusion this means that Bombardier beetles, giraffes, fish and all organs just created themselves by instantly re-arranging DNA or some such thing, is not "proof".


i believe as shapiro does, the cell is a naturally occuring genetic engineer, but i would use the word "tinkerer" instead because i believe it better describes what the cell is doing.
 
 

That's all I'm saying, I'm not attacking your belief I just think you don't realise how strong the term, "proof" is.
 
I wish you valued logic more, my lad. Logic tells us this only proves that lizards with gizzards, that ended up without gizzards, when in the woods with the wizards, switched on their gizzards.


i would imagine that you could use the above argument for any 2 organisms you choose, especially if they are the same phyla.
so, can a fish become a man?

#10 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 24 June 2017 - 05:13 AM

on peer review:
What is clear is that the forms of peer review are protean. Probably the systems of every journal and every grant giving body are different in at least some detail; and some systems are very different. There may even be some journals using the following classic system. The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This pastiche—which is not far from systems I have seen used—is little better than tossing a coin, because the level of agreement between reviewers on whether a paper should be published is little better than you'd expect by chance.1
. . .
So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.
- Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.htm

This statement is false.

 

The article author sends it to a publisher, providing possible peers to review the paper. These possible peers are not "friends of the editor". These peers cannot have done something with the specific study in the article, so they are not friends of the author either. The editor decides if the peers are acceptable reviewers and forwards the paper towards these reviewers with the question if they have the time to review the article. If they don't the editor needs to find other peers to review the article.

 

Then the article gets reviewed and comments are made by the reviewers resulting in 1 of the following:

- The article is rejected: This decision is made by the editor. The subject is not innovative enough, too many questions are unanswered, ...

- The article needs a major revision: Many questions have arisen by the article and need to be answered prior to publication. Portions of the text will need to changed in order to make things clear for future references. The author of the article does not get the names of the reviewers and all communication happens via the publisher.

- The article needs a minor revision: There are some minor questions with regard to some of the arguments made by the author. Some more elaboration is required. The author of the article does not get the names of the reviewers and all communication happens via the publisher.

- The article is accepted: Only format related changes can/should be made at this point.

 

Some articles get rejected right away, but most go either major -> months of work -> minor -> months of work -> accepted or major -> months of work -> rejected

None of them are "accepted" right away.

 

That, my friends, is peer review.



#11 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 June 2017 - 02:58 PM

on peer review:
What is clear is that the forms of peer review are protean. Probably the systems of every journal and every grant giving body are different in at least some detail; and some systems are very different. There may even be some journals using the following classic system. The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This pastiche—which is not far from systems I have seen used—is little better than tossing a coin, because the level of agreement between reviewers on whether a paper should be published is little better than you'd expect by chance.1
. . .
So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.
- Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.htm

This statement is false.
 
The article author sends it to a publisher, providing possible peers to review the paper. These possible peers are not "friends of the editor". These peers cannot have done something with the specific study in the article, so they are not friends of the author either. The editor decides if the peers are acceptable reviewers and forwards the paper towards these reviewers with the question if they have the time to review the article. If they don't the editor needs to find other peers to review the article.
 
Then the article gets reviewed and comments are made by the reviewers resulting in 1 of the following:
- The article is rejected: This decision is made by the editor. The subject is not innovative enough, too many questions are unanswered, ...
- The article needs a major revision: Many questions have arisen by the article and need to be answered prior to publication. Portions of the text will need to changed in order to make things clear for future references. The author of the article does not get the names of the reviewers and all communication happens via the publisher.
- The article needs a minor revision: There are some minor questions with regard to some of the arguments made by the author. Some more elaboration is required. The author of the article does not get the names of the reviewers and all communication happens via the publisher.
- The article is accepted: Only format related changes can/should be made at this point.
 
Some articles get rejected right away, but most go either major -> months of work -> minor -> months of work -> accepted or major -> months of work -> rejected
None of them are "accepted" right away.
 
That, my friends, is peer review.

i seriously doubt you have the credentials to call the royal society and NCBI a pack of liars.

#12 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 25 June 2017 - 05:23 AM

 

 

on peer review:
What is clear is that the forms of peer review are protean. Probably the systems of every journal and every grant giving body are different in at least some detail; and some systems are very different. There may even be some journals using the following classic system. The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This pastiche—which is not far from systems I have seen used—is little better than tossing a coin, because the level of agreement between reviewers on whether a paper should be published is little better than you'd expect by chance.1
. . .
So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.
- Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.htm

This statement is false.
 
The article author sends it to a publisher, providing possible peers to review the paper. These possible peers are not "friends of the editor". These peers cannot have done something with the specific study in the article, so they are not friends of the author either. The editor decides if the peers are acceptable reviewers and forwards the paper towards these reviewers with the question if they have the time to review the article. If they don't the editor needs to find other peers to review the article.
 
Then the article gets reviewed and comments are made by the reviewers resulting in 1 of the following:
- The article is rejected: This decision is made by the editor. The subject is not innovative enough, too many questions are unanswered, ...
- The article needs a major revision: Many questions have arisen by the article and need to be answered prior to publication. Portions of the text will need to changed in order to make things clear for future references. The author of the article does not get the names of the reviewers and all communication happens via the publisher.
- The article needs a minor revision: There are some minor questions with regard to some of the arguments made by the author. Some more elaboration is required. The author of the article does not get the names of the reviewers and all communication happens via the publisher.
- The article is accepted: Only format related changes can/should be made at this point.
 
Some articles get rejected right away, but most go either major -> months of work -> minor -> months of work -> accepted or major -> months of work -> rejected
None of them are "accepted" right away.
 
That, my friends, is peer review.

 

i seriously doubt you have the credentials to call the royal society and NCBI a pack of liars.

 

Note which part I stated that was false. And it is, up to the point I elaborated. Read your own article and contrast it with my elaboration. Then again, the author said there may even be some journals doing it as below. Since I don't know all journals, I can't make a statement about that. In general, in more high ranking journals (which are the ones that count imho)

 

I have 2 published papers in high ranking journals and 2 more going to the peer review process, (including being rejected by another journal), so I am fairly certain of how the peer review process happens. What about you?



#13 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 June 2017 - 06:30 AM

. . . so I am fairly certain of how the peer review process happens.

i'm sure you do, for a very limited number of institutions. a couple maybe?

What about you?

i haven't published anything anywhere.

#14 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 June 2017 - 08:36 PM

Evolution scientists regard ID and creation as the God-of-the-gaps, because they employ methodological naturalism, meaning a scientific explanation has to be natural, without any inference to supernature.

Ah yes .... the old "methodological naturalism" complaint.  Can you please provide just one methodology available to science that is not naturalistic?  While you're at it, can you provide a test available to science that would demonstrate supernatural causation?

 

We call them "natural" and "physical" sciences for a reason.  Can you guess what that reason is?

 

 

No indeed - it proves they won't let me run because I will beat them in the race. :acigar:

Your complaint is actually that the physical and natural sciences won't change the rules so creationists can play.



#15 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 29 June 2017 - 12:30 AM

 

Evolution scientists regard ID and creation as the God-of-the-gaps, because they employ methodological naturalism, meaning a scientific explanation has to be natural, without any inference to supernature.

Ah yes .... the old "methodological naturalism" complaint.  Can you please provide just one methodology available to science that is not naturalistic?  While you're at it, can you provide a test available to science that would demonstrate supernatural causation?

 

We call them "natural" and "physical" sciences for a reason.  Can you guess what that reason is?

 

 

No indeed - it proves they won't let me run because I will beat them in the race. :acigar:

Your complaint is actually that the physical and natural sciences won't change the rules so creationists can play.

 

 

"While you're at it, can you provide a test available to science that would demonstrate supernatural causation?"  :burp:

 

And while YOU are at it, could you please provide a HYPOTHETICAL process by which Time, Space, Matter, and Man's existence could have come into existence WITHOUT a supernatural causation? :funny:

.

The difference between a Militant Atheist and a Theistic Evolutionist is virtually indistinguishable.. :kaffeetrinker:

I often ask myself why that is so..

 

.

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.  Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."

 

G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”

.

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, as secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint - the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today”

 

Michael Ruse

.“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level-preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between
the old and the new-the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.”

 

John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist
.
"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.”

 

American Atheist
.
"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawkins



#16 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 June 2017 - 01:45 AM

STOP ARGUING that creation doesn't get accepted by peer review. It is like saying, "please show me you can run 100 metres fast at an official event," when you know they won't let me run the race because they have banned me. Does that prove I can't run 100 metres fast?

 

No indeed - it proves they won't let me run because I will beat them in the race. :acigar:

So the reason you're not in the Olympics is because you would beat all the other contestants...

 

:get_a_clue:



#17 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 29 June 2017 - 02:03 AM

 

STOP ARGUING that creation doesn't get accepted by peer review. It is like saying, "please show me you can run 100 metres fast at an official event," when you know they won't let me run the race because they have banned me. Does that prove I can't run 100 metres fast?

 

No indeed - it proves they won't let me run because I will beat them in the race. :acigar:

So the reason you're not in the Olympics is because you would beat all the other contestants...

 

:get_a_clue:

 

 

Yes he certainly would, but Mike wouldn't be allowed to participate in the Special Olympics of Deluded AbioDarwinsts because

he doesn't believe that he is an Accidental Ape that Evolved from a worm.. (A prerequisite for Darwinian Special Olympics),,  :gotcha: 

 

 

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special

assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the

fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."

(Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University],

 

evolution-happening-in-lab.jpg



#18 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 June 2017 - 02:55 AM

 

Piasan: Ah yes .... the old "methodological naturalism" complaint.  Can you please provide just one methodology available to science that is not naturalistic?  While you're at it, can you provide a test available to science that would demonstrate supernatural causation?

 

We call them "natural" and "physical" sciences for a reason.  Can you guess what that reason is?

 

But remember, I agree Piasan - that's the whole point, and because I agree creationism isn't science because it deals with more than science, why then should I be expected to show that it passes a science test? The units of creation can be science in part, just as the units of a plane are non-flying. So then if we say, "take this plane in, if it flies it doesn't pass the test," does that mean that the units the plane is made of, also will fly like the plane, and fail the test? So then to expect creationist literature accepted by peer review, labelled as creationism, is error and a red-herring. But to expect papers that FAVOUR/SUPPORT creationism, like Armitage's soft dino horn you agreed was excellent work, is not error.

 

This is because creationism is apologetics which may touch on various issues of historicity, theology, some science, but creationism as a whole, is apologetics.

 

I was requested by an atheist evolutionist to, "please show peer reviews for creationist literature". He didn't ask me if I believe creationism is science. Usually I am of the opinion I.D. is science to a point, but that creationism is apologetics, although there are papers of science which would support creation even if they aren't labelled creation.

 

For example young tissue TECHNICALLY, could just mean a young dino horn and not necessarily a young earth. But obviously they try their best to reject a paper like that because it implies creation might be true.

 

Didn't you read the tests he sent for, to date the dinosaurs? How does dating a dinosaur fossils mean anything to do with creationism? Yet the labs wouldn't test the samples writing back saying, "we can't support pseudo-science."

 

That is incredible, because logically how would a young animal prove the earth was young? That is like saying that if a baby was just born that the earth must be only nine months old. So then that proves that they will reject genuine scientific results because they imply/evidence creation. (proving a human motive, not a scientific one by those categorised as, "science")

 

But, the more obscure works which favour creation but don't seem to imply it to those not clever enough to notice it favours it, aren't rejected because they can't spot how those papers favour creation. So then every time a paper describes the design of the anatomy in various species, this is supportive of I.D. and creation. Anyone who has read Paley's descriptions of the human anatomy will realise that just by describing how well the anatomy is designed, so specifically with such blatant teleology, is to give credit to the Creator, because evolution will simply never be relevant to the study. 

 

So according to the law of identity, and non-contradiction, it is not possible for a paper expounding the brilliance of the design of the anatomy, to NOT favour a Creator/designer, because that is the scientific evidence we would expect, had the anatomy be designed, that it would be designed well. Further evidence to compound this, is the existence of biomimetics, because when humans with immense intelligence, have to steal the designs from nature, this is deductive proof that the design in nature is superior in it's cleverness, to our own.

 

Supportive of Creation, yes. Categorised as creation, no.

 

Anatomy papers should be categorised as ID. When any inference or allusion to ID is made in a paper, the paper is rejected.

 

So, as Mike says, "a rose by any other name is the same thing."

 

Atheo evo; "show me a rose in your garden."

mikey Holmes; "here they are."

atheo evo; "those aren't roses, we call them evo turds."

mikey; "but in every way they qualify as roses."

atheo evo; "no, gardeners don't accept those as roses, they are evo turds by name."


  • Blitzking likes this

#19 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 June 2017 - 03:05 AM

You see Fjuri/Piasan, there's always a cleverer way to win a 100 metre sprint, even if you have to run a 1000 metres faster than the 100.

 

"mike isn't allowed to run the 100, so we will only let him run the 1000".

 

"Oh sh**, mike has ran the 1000 in a time faster than the fastest 100 time."

 

;) :P

 

:acigar:



#20 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 June 2017 - 03:59 AM

A classroom project analogy comes to mind.

 

There is a classroom full of children trying to find the solution to a couple of questions the teacher gave. Its a group effort, they can work together to get to the answer. Where one person will not succeed, they can build upon the answers of others to get closer to a real solution.

Now there's Mark, he says he got the answers from the teacher of the other room.

 

Some of the kids don't want to use these answers, since it'll stop them from finding the solution themselves. 

Some of the kids just want to use these answers and be done with it, so they can go outside and play.

In the end it is decided to look at the answers anyway.

 

At some points these answers clearly differ from what they had so far.

Some of the kids decide that Mark might have gotten the wrong answers.

Some of the kids decide that the answers were instead just "hints".

Some of the kids decide that instead of going from what we've done already, we should change our "answering approach" so that we can get Marks answers because they were given by a Teacher.

 

Hours pass and the children who accepted the other Teachers answer occasionally propose a method to improve the class's solution. Time and again it gets refuted and pointed out where the errors are.

And after some time these children start to sulk "they don't want to accept our help because we're too good for them. We have the solution and they just don't wanna hear it".






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users