Where are all the bones?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You guys have more escape hatches for your junk science than your Titanic had voyages:

PRATTs, Red Herrings, No True Scotsmen, unacceptable sources, unqualified fields.

It's enough to make your Hindenburg look like it was their fault.

No, it's the fact that you repeatedly and consistently go in to threads and create posts that have absolutely no relevance or bearing on the thread in a juvenile attempt to derail them and draw the attention on to you, and many of us are just sick of you doing it.

 

[RickG]

Ernst Haeckel's Gigantic Fraud on Embryos

The only fraud I see is the sources presented. Why not try looking at mainstream science for once instead of dribbling literature known and so easily show to be deliberate misrepresentations.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solving-the-piltdown-man-scientific-fraud/

 

[Radrook]

What you need to look at in peer review is the reputation of the journal, not the peer review process.


That's total crap! And don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting atheism, I'm supporting science. If you have to debase something I suggest debasing something you have a background, experience, and understanding of instead of making baseless assertions. Sir, I spent some 30 years practicing science in the scientific community and still have numerous connections with scientists performing up to date research. I have worked along side atheists, Christians, and people of other religions, and with respect to the science, none of their personal beliefs come into play. Professional integrity is of utmost importance with scientists performing research.

Not everyone has that unqualified confidence in sceintific peer review:

THE DEFECTS OF PEER REVIEW

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.
http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full

 

[RickG]

And what if they tell me to bring it here?

Then tell them to consult me, a person with an actual science background and knows the difference.

 

[Radrook]

The only fraud I see is the sources presented. Why not try looking at mainstream science for once instead of dribbling literature known and so easily show to be deliberate misrepresentations.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solving-the-piltdown-man-scientific-fraud/

I don't have the unqualified faith you have in scientist moral integrity.

THE DEFECTS OF PEER REVIEW

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.
http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full

 

[Radrook]

Scientist peer reviewers, as all humans tend to do, have a tendency to let down their hair and party when they feel they are in total control.

ABUSE OF PEER REVIEW IS WIDESPREAD
http://www.peerreview.org/articles/abuse.htm

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's the fact that you repeatedly and consistently go in to threads and create posts that have absolutely no relevance or bearing on the thread in a juvenile attempt to derail them and draw the attention on to you, and many of us are just sick of you doing it.

Excuse me, chief, but I believe what I believe; and I have a right to say so.

And for someone who's only been here for ten months to tell me he's 'sick of it,' when others have "put up" with it for years and years without really complaining about it much, tells me you have a low tolerance level.

You have options for those sensitive feelings, you know:

1. Report me.
2. Put me on IGNORE.
3. Go to read-only mode.
4. All the above.

Quit trying to get others to feel sorry for you at my expense.

 

[Radrook]

Then tell them to consult me, a person with an actual science background and knows the difference.

You don't need a science background to detect crass quackery. Your convenient portrayal of non-scientists as practically lobotomized is ridiculous.
Philosophers are non scientists and will run circles around a scientist in the logic and rational or cogent thinking area. So your assumption has no basis in reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Can't data be misrepresented by mistake?

Certainly; I was just pointing out that there's a big difference between an honest mistake and deliberate deception.

 

[RickG]

Not everyone has that unqualified confidence in sceintific peer review:

Would you care to clarify that comment? And just what would you prefer, let anybody publish anything they want with no review, no criteria for original data, research, and use of proper methods? If you want to criticize a sub-standard peer review process, look at the creation science community. Almost all of the topics in that literature is from non-professionals in the area they write about, and many have absolutely no background in any science whatsoever. And the reviewers? Reviewers are supposed to be experts in the field in which they are reviewing. Do you not see a problem there?

 

[AV1611VET]

Certainly; I was just pointing out that there's a big difference between an honest mistake and deliberate deception.

Okay, thanks.

 

[Radrook]

Would you care to clarify that comment? And just what would you prefer, let anybody publish anything they want with no review, no criteria for original data, research, and use of proper methods? If you want to criticize a sub-standard peer review process, look at the creation science community. Almost all of the topics in that literature is from non-professionals in the area they write about, and many have absolutely no background in any science whatsoever. And the reviewers? Reviewers are supposed to be experts in the field in which they are reviewing. Do you not see a problem there?

I don't support nor approve of the crass, unjustifiable quackery you seem to be describing. To me if it quacks like a quack-then it is a quack regardless of claims to the contrary. Your vehement aversion to admitting that there are indeed scientific quacks quite capable of habitual quackery and supported by peers who might also be quacks is irrational.

 

[RickG]

You don't need a science background to detect crass quackery.

Its the peer review process that keeps the quackery out.

Your convenient portrayal of non-scientists as practically lobotomized is ridiculous.

It is factual and I speak from professional experience, not unsupported biased belief and opinion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Philosophers are non scientists and will run circles around a scientist in the logic and rational or cogent thinking area.

No. Most of the philosophers I know are, or have been, scientists; and many - if not most - scientists are dependent on 'logic and rational or cogent thinking' in their work.

So your assumption has no basis in reality.

It's your assertion about philosophers that has no basis in reality.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Excuse me, chief, but I believe what I believe; and I have a right to say so.

And for someone who's only been here for ten months to tell me he's 'sick of it,' when others have "put up" with it for years and years without really complaining about it much, tells me you have a low tolerance level.

You have options for those sensitive feelings, you know:

1. Report me.
2. Put me on IGNORE.
3. Go to read-only mode.
4. All the above.

Quit trying to get others to feel sorry for you at my expense.

Looking on it, 'sick of it' might have been an over-reaction. But it is fundamentally dishonest of you that, after you have been told for years (and I should know since I was a long-time lurker) that your comments on L'Aquila, Thalidomide and all of the other Red Herrings you post are completely wrong, you still choose to keep posting them time and again.

And for the record, I have reported you in the past for posting off-topic but nothing came of it, either in having your off-topic posts removed or anything else. And, I also only block the people who are just rude or malicious on general principle. Which you admittedly are not. Slightly annoying, yes, but not rude or malicious.

 

[RickG]

I don't support nor approve of the crass, unjustifiable quackery you seem to be describing.

Just saying, that is what you seemed to imply. That's why I suggest criticizing areas from which one has experience, rather than none at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Looking on it, 'sick of it' might have been an over-reaction. But it is fundamentally dishonest of you that, after you have been told for years (and I should know since I was a long-time lurker) that your comments on L'Aquila, Thalidomide and all of the other Red Herrings you post are completely wrong, you still choose to keep posting them time and again.

And for the record, I have reported you in the past for posting off-topic but nothing came of it, either in having your off-topic posts removed or anything else. And, I also only block the people who are just rude or malicious on general principle. Which you admittedly are not. Slightly annoying, yes, but not rude or malicious.

/thread

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

/thread

So are you going to stop creating posts about off topic things like L'Aquila, Thalidomide and other such topics?

 

[Radrook]

Just saying, that is what you seemed to imply. That's why I suggest criticizing areas from which one has experience, rather than none at all.

Sorry! Nice try but no cigar!

If atheist and agnostic scientists do not want their quacking detected and identified as quackery by intelligent, qualified adults who excel at cogent reasoning and are totally familiar with what the scientific method demands and the various devious ways in which unethical scientists might cunningly choose to violate it, then such so-called scientists should desist from ill concealed habitual quackery. Otherwise their obvious quacking will draw the critical attention which they would much rather prefer to avoid.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If atheist and agnostic scientists do not want their quacking detected and identified as quackery by intelligent, qualified adults who excel at cogent reasoning and are totally familiar with what the scientific method demands and the various devious ways in which unethical scientists might cunningly choose to violate it, then such so-called scientists should desist from ill concealed habitual quackery. Otherwise their obvious quacking will draw the critical attention which they would much rather prefer to avoid.

You haven't even shown such scientists 'quacking'.