Jump to content


Photo

Peer Review = Valididty


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2009 - 02:08 AM

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.

View Post

This is a great point. This is also true among cults and it differentiates people who are actual truth seekers versus those that have an agenda to manipulate others.

I've heard it said that a person who believes they have a right to limit your access to information also believe that they are your master.

#22 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2009 - 02:14 AM

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

View Post

You don't have to stop, just go to the appropriate thread. <_<

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...

View Post

Then explain how discussions about string theory and big bangs and multi-verses and evolution, for that matter, show up in peer review journals when the scientific support for these is based on a philosophical perspective more than tangible evidence.

Please explain to us the exact philosophical criteria that would make one peer review outfit more credible than another?

#23 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 02:24 AM

Then explain how discussions about string theory and big bangs and multi-verses and evolution for that matter show up in peer review journals when the scientific support for these is based on a philosophical perspective more than tangible evidence.

View Post

String theory - this has wonderful theoretical and mathematical explanations, but admittedly, it's more than a little light on observational evidence (which is why many physicists don't currently accept it). But the mere fact that it DOES have such excellent theoretical justification is enough for it to be published. But yes, some physicists do agree with you here.

The big bang - it has theoretical verification and observational verification, which is why it's still being published. Every scientific theory has some assumptions, and yeah, relativity and the big bang have assumptions. They're still good science, since they predict things that other theories don't predict - things that we can observe and verify. That's why the big bang and relativity make it into the journals.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with multiverses and evolution to answer on those fronts.

As for young earth claims, well, there's just no scientific or mathematical evidence out there to suggest a young universe. The best I've seen is the possibility that the world isn't quite as old as we now think it is (as in the speed of light thread), but there's nothing that points directly to a young universe, on the order of 10000 years. And that's why we don't see that stuff in the journals.

#24 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 26 November 2009 - 02:25 AM

This is a great point. This is also true among cults and it differentiates people who are actual truth seekers versus those that have an agenda to manipulate others.

I've heard it said that a person who believes they have a right to limit your access to information also believe that they are your master.

View Post

Good morning Adam. My excuse is employment, somebody has to "make" the electricity for all those baking, frying, GOOOOOOOdies. My daughter is feeding her family and has promissed me a helping when I wake (and drive a two hours round trip) and enough to make lunch tonight.

I hope you are you are awake for better. Cooking, harrassing the cook?



It has always bee the case in every avenue of human endeavor that an "elite" group becomes the thinkers and the rest follow. Most of these endeavors start out with good intention. Pollution is an item that we need, as a world, and in America, as world leaders (pre-Obama) to address. If global warming is a affect of our industry we need to make some changes faster than the current pace. The science does not support man-made warming though. The peer review process seems to have been corrupted, and there is evidence which is not being denied. The best explanation I have seen yet is that "the information is taken of context and does not indicate what has been portrayed." That sure sounds like the "poor uneducated..." storyline.

They could just release all the emails and settle it. Not gonna happen though. And they will claim privacy. These are apparantly technical discussions.

#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2009 - 02:41 AM

Good morning Adam.  My excuse is employment, somebody has to "make" the electricity for all those baking, frying, GOOOOOOOdies.  My daughter is feeding her family and has promissed me a helping when I wake (and drive a two hours round trip) and enough to make lunch tonight. 

I hope you are you are awake for better.  Cooking, harrassing the cook?
It has always bee the case in every avenue of human endeavor that an "elite" group becomes the thinkers and the rest follow.  Most of these endeavors start out with good intention.  Pollution is an item that we need, as a world, and in America, as world leaders (pre-Obama) to address.  If global warming is a affect of our industry we need to make some changes faster than the current pace.  The science does not support man-made warming though.  The peer review process seems to have been corrupted, and there is evidence which is not being denied.  The best explanation I have seen yet is that "the information is taken of context and does not indicate what has been portrayed."  That sure sounds like the "poor uneducated..." storyline.

They could just release all the emails and settle it.  Not gonna happen though.  And they will claim privacy.  These are apparantly technical discussions.

View Post

Good morning. ;)

I woke up and couldn't sleep. We are going to the in-laws for Thanksgiving. Very little to do here. <_<

I don't know if this is the right thread to put this in but I have seen some very compelling arguments for how the data for man made global warming is being wrangled into a distorted concept through hype and politics.

I guess if my peers were fellow global warming fanatics, like Al Gore, than how could I consider a person who questions my fanaticism a peer?

Here are those links:

R0TKYPQfBLM

36gK2oYCwjE

This is a good one as well:

http://www.answersin.../global-warming

#26 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 26 November 2009 - 02:44 AM

but there's nothing that points directly to a young universe, on the order of 10000 years.  And that's why we don't see that stuff in the journals.

View Post

http://www.earthage....young_earth.htm

That was the first of 41.6 million pages of results, pro and con. There is evidence, but unless it fits the current preferences, it is not peer reviewed, because the peers are not peers of the research.

I view the peer review concept as an equal of the Amercian "two-party" system. It is only two praties because thoe two parties have eliminated the possibility of any other party gaining a national position. They have done this by procedure. Any third party may make the attempt IF that party can overcome the legislative blockade designed to thwart a third party attempt. Peer review is the science fields' equal. Anybody may submit, but the holders of the thrown must accept the submition.

#27 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2009 - 02:45 AM

String theory - this has wonderful theoretical and mathematical explanations, but admittedly, it's more than a little light on observational evidence (which is why many physicists don't currently accept it).  But the mere fact that it DOES have such excellent theoretical justification is enough for it to be published.  But yes, some physicists do agree with you here.

The big bang - it has theoretical verification and observational verification, which is why it's still being published.  Every scientific theory has some assumptions, and yeah, relativity and the big bang have assumptions.  They're still good science, since they predict things that other theories don't predict - things that we can observe and verify.  That's why the big bang and relativity make it into the journals.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with multiverses and evolution to answer on those fronts.

As for young earth claims, well, there's just no scientific or mathematical evidence out there to suggest a young universe.  The best I've seen is the possibility that the world isn't quite as old as we now think it is (as in the speed of light thread), but there's nothing that points directly to a young universe, on the order of 10000 years.  And that's why we don't see that stuff in the journals.

View Post


Please address the topic relevant question in my post:

Please explain to us the exact philosophical criteria that would make one peer review outfit more credible than another?

View Post



#28 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 04:46 AM

http://www.earthage....young_earth.htm

That was the first of 41.6 million pages of results, pro and con.  There is evidence, but unless it fits the current preferences, it is not peer reviewed, because the peers are not peers of the research.

View Post

Well, the evidence has probably been published (or so I assume): the moon's orbit is receding, the sun is shrinking, etc. It's the conclusions that aren't in there with them.

I don't have time now to look at all of that now, but just looking at a few with some easy answers:

3. There's no reason to assume that the speed of its contraction is constant. And if talkorigins is correct, that measurement was based on only one report from 1980 - a measurement which has failed to be replicated.

4. 80000 years old: http://www.pamame.co...ing-aspen-1.jpg

5. The magnetic field is well known to vary theoretically, but not at a constant rate; besides, there's no reason to extrapolate backwards with an exponential growth/constant rate model.

17. Again, why assume a constant rate?

#29 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 04:59 AM

Please address the topic relevant question in my post:

Please explain to us the exact philosophical criteria that would make one peer review outfit more credible than another?

View Post

Are you referring to when I mentioned "legit journals"? If so, then okay, here's an example --

Legitimate: Journal of Applied Physics
Not legitimate: Answers in Genesis Research Journal

Why? Compare --

http://www.aip.org/p...rvs/ethics.html
http://www.answersin...call-for-papers ("Papers can be in any relevant field of science, theology, history, or social science, but they must be from a young-earth and young-universe perspective. Rather than merely pointing out flaws in evolutionary theory, papers should aim to assist the development of the Creation and Flood model of origins.")

If that's not self-explanatory, the illegitimate journals are the ones with clear and undeniable bias.

#30 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 26 November 2009 - 06:24 AM

Well, the evidence has probably been published (or so I assume): the moon's orbit is receding, the sun is shrinking, etc.  It's the conclusions that aren't in there with them.

I don't have time now to look at all of that now, but just looking at a few with some easy answers:

3. There's no reason to assume that the speed of its contraction is constant.  And if talkorigins is correct, that measurement was based on only one report from 1980 - a measurement which has failed to be replicated.

4. 80000 years old: http://www.pamame.co...ing-aspen-1.jpg

5. The magnetic field is well known to vary theoretically, but not at a constant rate; besides, there's no reason to extrapolate backwards with an exponential growth/constant rate model.

17. Again, why assume a constant rate?

View Post


I'll wait for your new thread to further those discussions, just showing you there is plenty to chat about. Let me know.

#31 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 26 November 2009 - 06:40 AM

[quote name='martemius' date='Nov 26 2009, 05:59 AM']

View Post

[/quote]
Are you referring to when I mentioned "legit journals"? If so, then okay, here's an example --

Legitimate: Journal of Applied Physics
Not legitimate: Answers in Genesis Research Journal

Why? Compare --

http://www.aip.org/p...rvs/ethics.html
http://www.answersin...call-for-papers ("Papers can be in any relevant field of science, theology, history, or social science, but they must be from a young-earth and young-universe perspective. Rather than merely pointing out flaws in evolutionary theory, papers should aim to assist the development of the Creation and Flood model of origins.")

If that's not self-explanatory, the illegitimate journals are the ones with clear and undeniable bias.

View Post

[/quote]
And whom is it that decides what is acceptable practices regarding peer review? Wait, I'll take a guess; peer reviewed?

It is the very scientists that dis-allow material they don't agree with that are the "jury" of whether their practices and decisions are fair. That is the essence of the fallacy of peer review. It is a system intending to be fair, but incapable by design of completing that intention. The design is for peer reviewed scholars to review the material to be reviewed. When it does obviously not match the criteria they understand to be relavent, they must deny, for it is outside the spectrum of their study. They are not peers of young universe/earth research. They research indicates an old universe. Research that does not, is flawed. It is the only assessment they are able to make, by design. And when there decisions are challenged, their peers, like minded scientsts agree that the material does not match the criteria of their research. Pardon me but, DUH.

That is the standard of all fields and why peer review is a fallacy. There are many, once prominent scientists, whom have fallen off the peer reviewed pedistal when they stepped out of line. Their reearch ethics had not changed, just their interpretation of the evidence.

#32 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2009 - 06:50 AM

If that's not self-explanatory, the illegitimate journals are the ones with clear and undeniable bias.

View Post

So what you're saying is that you prefer to use sources that keep their biases hidden and in the closet and pretending that they don't have any. I get it.

#33 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 26 November 2009 - 07:33 AM

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?

View Post


I believe what we are seeing is the philosophy of "the separation of church and state" come to it's logical end. The state funds science (NSF), education, and the legal systems (ACLU) which keep"religion" out.

And now we have the discovery and history channel propagating to the general public. So where are the editors who would even consider putting an objective flood geology article in their journal? Are you going to pick strawberries out of a flower garden--if you get my drift?

#34 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2009 - 08:28 AM

I believe what we are seeing is the philosophy of "the separation of church and state" come to it's logical end.  The state funds science (NSF), education, and the legal systems (ACLU) which keep"religion" out. 

And now we have the discovery and history channel propagating to the general public.  So where are the editors who would even consider putting an objective flood geology article in their journal?  Are you going to pick strawberries out of a flower garden--if you get my drift?

View Post

AFJ,

Your point is well made.

This is the bulk of Eugenie Scott's effort that you've outlined clearly. The current misconception of 'separation of church and state' is the key playing card in this matter. That's why evolutionists work feverishly to maintain the perception that religion and science have nothing to say about each other and evolution is not a religious concept. When people start to realize that the philosophy that leads to evolution is indeed religious the super structure of science versus religion and evolution being science and creation having no scientific backing, collapses like a house of cards.

#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2009 - 08:36 AM

I think this is one of the best quotes that reveals the axiomatic thinking of those who clamor to 'respected peer review journals' for their 'unbiased truth':

Science, is fundamentally, a game with one over riding and defining rule:

Let's see how far, and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of  purely physical and material causes without "EVER" invoking the supernatural. [Involving God] in the explanation constitutes a form of intellectual cheating. A chess player is perfectly capable of smashing his opponents king on the floor during a tournament, but this does not make him a champion because the rules were not followed. Evolution is not promoted because of overwhelming evidence in it's favor, nor is creation rejected for lack of evidence. The biblical creation model is simply ignored because scientists are trained to ignore this possibility. They would be accused of "cheating" if they did accept the evidence for creation.

Richard Dickerson  (Biochemist-evolutionist) Member of National Academy of science . February 1, a closer look at the evidence



#36 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 November 2009 - 01:17 PM

Related topic:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2640

#37 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 01:28 PM

So what you're saying is that you prefer to use sources that keep their biases hidden and in the closet and pretending that they don't have any. I get it.

View Post

In the case of the AiG journal, the bias is clear and undeniable (because, well, they say so). In the case of, say, the Journal of Applied Physics, there's no reason to suspect a bias. You can try and say that they have secret biases that they're keeping hidden from everyone, but you have no evidence for that claim.

#38 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 01:33 PM

I'll wait for your new thread to further those discussions, just showing you there is plenty to chat about.  Let me know.

View Post

Wait, my new thread? I thought you were going to make it. :blink:

#39 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 01:56 PM

And whom is it that decides what is acceptable practices regarding peer review?  Wait, I'll take a guess; peer reviewed?

It is the very scientists that dis-allow material they don't agree with that are the "jury" of whether their practices and decisions are fair.  That is the essence of the fallacy of peer review.  It is a system intending to be fair, but incapable by design of completing that intention.  The design is for peer reviewed scholars to review the material to be reviewed.  When it does obviously not match the criteria they understand to be relavent, they must deny, for it is outside the spectrum of their study.  They are not peers of young universe/earth research.  They research indicates an old universe.  Research that does not, is flawed.  It is the only assessment they are able to make, by design.  And when there decisions are challenged, their peers, like minded scientsts agree that the material does not match the criteria of their research.  Pardon me but, DUH.

That is the standard of all fields and why peer review is a fallacy.  There are many, once prominent scientists, whom have fallen off the peer reviewed pedistal when they stepped out of line.  Their reearch ethics had not changed, just their interpretation of the evidence.

View Post

But they DO let in real scientific studies such as on the variable speed of light, the recession of the moon, the changing magnetic field of the Earth, and so on. They just don't let in the absurd YEC deductions from that evidence, because, well, they're absurd.

#40 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 26 November 2009 - 07:29 PM

But they DO let in real scientific studies such as on the variable speed of light, the recession of the moon, the changing magnetic field of the Earth, and so on.  They just don't let in the absurd YEC deductions from that evidence, because, well, they're absurd.

View Post

Absurd only because they don't agree with the conclusions. They don't even use the same standards for YEC and Old Earth. For instance, you discounted several of the YEC evidences because they regard factors to have some constant reliability. However, the moment stable factors are a problem for old earth criteria, "there is no reason to assume they would be constant". Come on. You implied you want honest debate.

I'll be the first to admit that some YEC evidences are invalid. However, there are many that appear to have merit. Unless, the Old Age supporters are allowed to adjust criteria ONLY when it suits their peer reviewed argument.

You claimed the size of Sol is not necessarily constant so cannot be relied on as evidence of Earth's age. Also a popular Old Age counter. But according to astronomy, stars have a reliable, predicatble life cycle. They use this cylce AS EVIDENCE of old universe. So explain why it is so predicatble UNLESS it allows for proof of Earth's young age??




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users