Jump to content


Photo

Peer Review = Valididty


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#1 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 25 November 2009 - 12:58 AM

I don't expect this thread will go far.

The press has released that there are several (thousands) emails written by hundreds of "Global Warming" experts and leaders of the field. A very small number of these have been viewed publically. There is very good evidence in the little we can see, that the "experts" have been using peer review, to eliminate legitimate argument against their case. It seems they freely admit in the (secret) emails that they are not dis-allowing peer review because of any lack of evidence or research. They are quite clear that it is because allowing the offending articles to be accredited in the peer review process would legitimize the debate against man-made global warming. There is even the chance that the public could find out the Earth is has actually not been getting any warmer for about a decade and global temperatures may indicate a cooling trend.

Why point this all out? Peer review. Isn't that one requirement I keep hearing ID needs to be legitimized. We are constantly told that no reputable scientist or scientific organization would stoop so low that prejudism of any sort could foul the peer review system. That these people are above that pettyness, that they only follow the research etc. Is that only ToE researches then?

The authors of these emails include (all are from the little I have been able to read) the leaders in the field from the research and bureacratic offices.

Of course, I am sure :D there is no chance that such a circumstance would occur in the ToE areas of research. :lol:

#2 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 12:59 AM

Show me evidence for these claims.

#3 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:23 AM

Show me evidence for these claims.

View Post

I am not sure what you want. The emails exist. They have made the rounds in the media. The story is not very "sexy or bloody" so I doubt you will find much there now. The authors are not caiming that the emails are fiction, only that they were private and should not have been made public.

I believe the New York Times is the aganecy holding the bulk of the material.

#4 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:35 AM

I am not sure what you want.  The emails exist.  They have made the rounds in the media.  The story is not very "sexy or bloody" so I doubt you will find much there now.  The authors are not caiming that the emails are fiction, only that they were private and should not have been made public.

I believe the New York Times is the aganecy holding the bulk of the material.

View Post

Then link me to a NYT article on the topic.

#5 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:55 AM

Then link me to a NYT article on the topic.

View Post

http://newsbusters.o...als-own-hypocri

There was a round of media on Sunday but I have heard nothing since. Web searches have found much of the same. The emails are there. Nobody is contesting the existance or legitimacy either. What I did see Sunday was "spokespeople" crying foul, but not contesting any content.

Strange how the New York Times wants to keep these private but is okay with divulging national secrets. But that is another story

I did find several sites claiming more info, but nothing new found there. What I find interesting is that nobody seems suprised.

#6 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:13 AM

http://newsbusters.o...als-own-hypocri

There was a round of media on Sunday but I have heard nothing since.  Web searches have found much of the same.  The emails are there.  Nobody is contesting the existance or legitimacy either.  What I did see Sunday was "spokespeople" crying foul, but not contesting any content.

Strange how the New York Times wants to keep these private but is okay with divulging national secrets.  But that is another story

I did find several sites claiming more info, but nothing new found there.  What I find interesting is that nobody seems suprised.

View Post

Well, I'm a bit reticent to completely accept news from a website with such a clear political bias, but okay, even if it's completely legit, it's only evidence for one or two douches who are too crazed with power. The way you and other posters on this forum are going on, it's more of the entire scientific community, which I see no evidence for.

#7 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:42 AM

Well, I'm a bit reticent to completely accept news from a website with such a clear political bias, but okay, even if it's completely legit, it's only evidence for one or two douches who are too crazed with power.  The way you and other posters on this forum are going on, it's more of the entire scientific community, which I see no evidence for.

View Post

What I believe is; there is no conspiracy. In the commonly used sense. There are not groups of people out there deciding;
-We need to curb polution so we will bend every statistic so that blobal warming appears real and kill of any who deny.
-We can't have all these people believing in God so we will discount the Bible at every chance and jail any who oppose us.
-Only a world wide government can keep the peace so we will bankrupt every wealthy country until all are equal.

But the people that do make the decisions, and perform the research in the above and other avenues develope a kindrid mind. There probably are a few that go out of theer way to get there agenda in the forefront at all costs. But most are trying to do an honest job of their research.

However, in this modern world, the "squeaky wheel" gets the grease. Those that are pushing hardest are few, but because the honest researcher is just that, a researcher, busy studying, testing, etc. Somebody else has to gain the funding, support, etc. They follow the leader because he has the money. And if every now and then they have to "look the other way" while a set of "unclear" results is disgarded because it just does not fit the desired outcome, well that is the cost of doing business with a squeaky wheel, and it pays the bills.

So I don't think any amount of research will find a "smoke filled, back room, starlight chamber" organizing all the nefarious operations contolling our lives. I think you will find a group of like minded people that tend to disregard outsider influence. A conspiracy of omission.

Just a side note; I read about 20 more sites, pro and con, regarding the emails in question. Not much in the way of smoking guns, although there is definatley damning text. But still, no matter where I look, there is no denial of the emails or their legitamacy. The university they were stolen from claims there are too many to varify the authenticity of all, but they know of none that are fakes.

So I'll ask this. Is it not possible that there is similar activity in ToE, old age of the universe, etc.?

#8 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:58 AM

So I'll ask this.  Is it not possible that there is similar activity in ToE, old age of the universe, etc.?

View Post

I'll say the same thing I said before: there are probably a few douches who automatically dismiss a paper that seems to suggest a young universe, creationism, our lack of influence on the climate, etc., but only a few. Is it possible that a revolutionary, brilliant treatise on creationism is rejected from a journal for being about creationism? Sure. But there's an extremely wide variety of peer-reviewed journals to publish to, and it would be virtually impossible to be rejected by all of them only by virtue of subject matter. Simply put, if your idea isn't blatant bollocks, you can get it published somewhere.



Besides, I've seen no actual scientific evidence for a young universe, whether peer-reviewed or not, so it's not really any surprise that such stuff doesn't show up in the legit journals.

#9 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:24 PM

Another link

http://online.wsj.co...5294859215.html

My favourite part so far:

"The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said.

I see they've learned to call all quotes "out of context" as well. Then again, we can't really assume it's a different crew...

#10 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 25 November 2009 - 09:09 PM

Besides, I've seen no actual scientific evidence for a young universe, whether peer-reviewed or not, so it's not really any surprise that such stuff doesn't show up in the legit journals.

View Post

There may be more to discuss here. There are new stories in the media and I believe as we get nearer the Copehagen smmit, these will increase. We will see.

I appreciate your responses and acceptance of the possibilties. Thank you.

For further discussion on the "age" question, you might enjoy the current discussion in Speed of Light.

http://www.evolution...320

Look forward to hearing from you there.

Larry

#11 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 11:48 PM

For further discussion on the "age" question, you might enjoy the current discussion in Speed of Light.

http://www.evolution...320

Look forward to hearing from you there.

Larry

View Post

I don't really want to get into that thread. But even if I did, from what I can tell, it doesn't present any direct evidence for a young earth, which is what I said didn't exist in my previous post (if at some point in the thread actual evidence WAS presented, then link me to it, but I don't want to read through all 17 pages).


btw, I'd include other aspects of creationism/id in this but I know much, much less about them.

#12 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:10 AM

I don't really want to get into that thread.  But even if I did, from what I can tell, it doesn't present any direct evidence for a young earth, which is what I said didn't exist in my previous post (if at some point in the thread actual evidence WAS presented, then link me to it, but I don't want to read through all 17 pages).
btw, I'd include other aspects of creationism/id in this but I know much, much less about them.

View Post

Yes the 17 pages would be rough to catch up on. And, as happens there is much straying off topic. You might try the last 2 or 3 pages with attention to myself and SeeJay.

In brief, but unfairly brief, my argument an agreement that there is no young universe evidence.

If you would like to discuss only a Young Earth, I'd be happy to meet you on a new thread. Let me know?

#13 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:14 AM

In brief, but unfairly brief, my argument an agreement that there is no young universe evidence.

Well, then you can't really expect much in the way of young earth support in the peer-reviewed journals.

If you would like to discuss only a Young Earth, I'd be happy to meet you on a new thread.  Let me know?

View Post

Sure. I'm just not sure how much can be said that hasn't been already...

#14 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:17 AM

Interestingly, this is being called "the self-correcting power of science" at the same time they are saying "The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,"

#15 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2009 - 01:42 AM

Well, then you can't really expect much in the way of young earth support in the peer-reviewed journals.
Sure.  I'm just not sure how much can be said that hasn't been already...

View Post

How about trying to stay on topic or join a different thread through Larry's invitation? This thread is about peer review. Could your attempt to change the subject be any more blatant?

Consider this a warning.

#16 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 26 November 2009 - 01:45 AM

Well, then you can't really expect much in the way of young earth support in the peer-reviewed journals.
Sure.  I'm just not sure how much can be said that hasn't been already...

View Post

Then you underestimate the possibilities of research. Evidence of an old universe is based on factors from current observation. They may not be accurate for past performance. And that is supported by current peer reviewed literature.

See you in the new thread.

#17 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2009 - 01:45 AM

By the way, this could shape up to be a great thread. Thanks Larry. I can see why some would try to turn it into a train wreck.

#18 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2009 - 01:54 AM

Then you underestimate the possibilities of research.  Evidence of an old universe is based on factors from current observation.  They may not be accurate for past performance.  And that is supported by current peer reviewed literature.

View Post

Just look at what "peer review" implies and ask yourself what determines who a peer actually is? If philosophical naturalism is the cut off for who is or isn't a peer then how and why would anybody want to be amongst them as peers? If a peer is someone who is closed minded to the possibility that climate change is not fundamentally a human cause then being amongst those people as 'peers' is irrelevant.

It's amazing how the philosophy is avoided by people who want to bandy about assertions that they know what the "acceptable sources" of review are. Who is to say and what is the determination?

#19 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 26 November 2009 - 02:02 AM

By the way, this could shape up to be a great thread. Thanks Larry. I can see why some would try to turn it into a train wreck.

View Post

As of yesterday I thought the thread would run its course rapidly. There seemed to be more interest (at least on FOX) when I woke this afternoon (night shift this week). Maybe the proximity of Copenhagen will keep it alive a bit longer.

It has always struck me odd that anybody supports the idea that the peer review process cannot be prejudiced. I have never been associated with a human endeavor which does not suffer some human prejudice. We are human, it is our in our nature to believe that those whom don't believe as we do, are wrong. In the many fields of science, they have the added liability of intelligance (at least the appearance of). This causes a natural and reasonable assumption that they know better than the uneducated. Much as a parent feels for their children. They will not see it as prejudice. They probably believe they are protecting us poor uneducated form our own lack of understanding,

Those poor people can't understand. We better not let them see this study. It will just confuse them and they could mis-understand. Therefore we shall continue to confirm X (Global Warming, ToE, no life before the birth, etc.) even if there is appearant evidence against X until we can figure it all out for them.

#20 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 02:02 AM

How about trying to stay on topic or join a different thread through Larry's invitation? This thread is about peer review. Could your attempt to change the subject be any more blatant?

Consider this a warning.

View Post

On the contrary, I think my statement was relevant. If there's no real scientific support for these things, then you simply can't expect them to show up in the peer-reviewed journals -- whether or not they're being rejected solely for subject matter, they have no place there.

But okay, if you think I'm derailing the thread, then I'll just stop right there.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users