Where are all the bones?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Peer Review in Crisis


The publication of a scientific study in a peer-reviewed journal is commonly recognized as a kind of "nobilitation" of the study that confirms its worth. The peer-review process was designed to assure the validity and quality of science that seeks publication. This is not always the case. If and when peer review fails, sloppy science gets published.

According to a recent analysis published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, about 67 percent of 2047 studies retracted from biomedical and life-science journals (as of May 3, 2012) resulted from scientific misconduct. However, the same PNAS study indicated that about 21 percent of the retractions were attributed to a scientific error. This indicates that failures in peer-review led to the publication of studies that shouldn’t have passed muster. This relatively low number of studies published in error (ca. 436) might be the tip of a larger iceberg, caused by the unwillingness of the editors to take an action

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...le/Opinion--Scientific-Peer-Review-in-Crisis/

First things first: please stop putting things your taking from other sites in QUOTEs. It won't come up in another persons post.

And secondly, did you even read your own post? Look at what it says: "about 67 percent of 2047 studies retracted from biomedical and life-science journals..." Do you know which community uses those sciences? The medical sciences community. Not the physical sciences community, like we've been asking for and you seem to be claiming, but the medical sciences community.

 

[Radrook]

Also, I wasn't the one who brought up the peer review system. I was the one who asked for examples of non-creationist scientists misrepresenting data to suit their own ends.

And such examples have been repeatedly provided but you choose to explain them away as creationist quackery.

 

[Radrook]

Again, the examples of fraud you cited (linked) were from the creation science literature, then you provide support for it from a paper in the medical science literature. No one shifted but you.


I already fixed them. We all have typos.

Just because a website is dedicated to proving the creationist viewpoint doesn't man that all evidence presented is to be called creationist and disqualified as such. Such a view is absurd! It's like saying that nothing found on an atheist site is legit because it is used on an atheist site. That is nonsense!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And such examples have been repeatedly provided but you choose to explain them away as creationist quackery.

No, since the examples you have been giving are examples of abuse in the MEDICAL SCIENCES community when I'm asking for examples from the PHYSICAL SCIENCES community. How hard is this for you to understand?

 

[Radrook]

No, since the examples you have been giving are examples of abuse in the MEDICAL SCIENCES community when I'm asking for examples from the PHYSICAL SCIENCES community. How hard is this for you to understand?

How hard is it for you to understand that your objection is totally irrelevant to the Peer Review value issue that arose? Or weren't you paying attention and it got passed you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How hard is it for you to understand that your objection is totally irrelevant to the Peer Review value issue that arose? Or weren't you paying attention and it got passed you?

You are a living example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
You have been repeatedly told that none of the examples you have posted have anything to do with the physical sciences and that you have presented a single example of scientists in the physical sciences community abusing peer review, but you refuse to accept it.

Also, have you not noticed that RickG and myself are not arguing that the peer review process can be abused? Merely we are asking you for examples of scientists who study the physical sciences abusing it?

 

[RickG]

Just because a website is dedicated to proving the creationist viewpoint doesn't man that all evidence presented is to be called creationist and disqualified as such. Such a view is absurd! It's like saying that nothing found on an atheist site is legit because it is used on an atheist site. That is nonsense!

My comments are specific to "creation science", not creation sites. Also, I do not visit atheist sites.

 

[HitchSlap]

Just because a website is dedicated to proving the creationist viewpoint doesn't man that all evidence presented is to be called creationist and disqualified as such. Such a view is absurd! It's like saying that nothing found on an atheist site is legit because it is used on an atheist site. That is nonsense!

Do you find all information on a flat earth site to be nonsense?

 

[HitchSlap]

My comments are specific to "creation science", not creation sites. Also, I do not visit atheist sites.

I'm not even sure what an "atheist site" is. The only forum I'm on with other atheists, is CF.

 

[Radrook]

My comments are specific to "creation science", not creation sites. Also, I do not visit atheist sites.

But you repeatedly disqualify info cited there as unacceptable because it is posted on a creationist site. Not very logical nor convincing.

BTW

International Weekly Journal of Science
Scientists behaving badly
They lie, they cheat and they steal.
http://www.nature.com/news/1998/040301/full/news040301-9.html

Fraud in Science: Liar! Liar!
Economist – Jun 4, 2009

Scientists are not quite as honest as might be hoped.

[Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh conducted a meta-analysis of surveys of scientific honesty, published in the Public Library of Science, and reported that] About 10% confessed to questionable practices, such as “dropping data points based on a gut feeling” or “failing to present data that contradict one’s previous research”—
http://www.economist.com/node/13776974

 

[HitchSlap]

But you repeatedly disqualify info cited there as unacceptable because it is poste on a creationist site. Not very logical nor convincing.

BTW


Fraud in Science: Liar! Liar!
Economist – Jun 4, 2009

Scientists are not quite as honest as might be hoped.

[Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh conducted a meta-analysis of surveys of scientific honesty, published in the Public Library of Science, and reported that] About 10% confessed to questionable practices, such as “dropping data points based on a gut feeling” or “failing to present data that contradict one’s previous research”—
http://www.economist.com/node/13776974

You don't see the irony in posting links where scientists are outed by behaving badly?

 

[RickG]

I'm not even sure what an "atheist site" is. The only forum I'm on with other atheists, is CF.

It is amazing the amount of comments here on the CF that paint scientists in general as atheists, especially when non of the science being criticized has absolutely nothing to do with the bible.

 

[Radrook]

Several years ago I had a debate with a person who would not

It is amazing the amount of comments here on the CF that paint scientists in general as atheists, especially when non of the science being criticized has absolutely nothing to do with the bible.

Perhaps because you incorrectly come across as a fervent defender of all scientists who cast serious doubt on the biblical account?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Perhaps because you incorrectly come across as a fervent defender of all scientists who cast serious doubt on the biblical account?

Even though the Biblical account, in no way whatsoever, links up at all with what we see in God's actual creation?

 

[RickG]

But you repeatedly disqualify info cited there as unacceptable because it is posted on a creationist site. Not very logical nor convincing.

I disqualify it on the basis of its merit. I would be glad to review any physical science article on any creationist site and provide a review for you, which you may challenge if you so wish.

BTW


Fraud in Science: Liar! Liar!
Economist – Jun 4, 2009

Scientists are not quite as honest as might be hoped.

[Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh conducted a meta-analysis of surveys of scientific honesty, published in the Public Library of Science, and reported that] About 10% confessed to questionable practices, such as “dropping data points based on a gut feeling” or “failing to present data that contradict one’s previous research”—
http://www.economist.com/node/13776974

Yes, I see. I only have two points to make on it.

1. It's an 'OP end' from an Economic magazine.
2. Where does almost all of that come from? The 'outline journals' I have already previously mentioned that publish work outside their specified specialty, by reviewers outside their field so specialty.

 

[RickG]

Perhaps because you incorrectly come across as a fervent defender of all scientists who cast serious doubt on the biblical account?

Please provide a peer review physical science paper that says anything against the bible.

 

[Alithis]

I agree, trying to force science into faith only weakens faith, which is why I don't understand why the greater Christian community doesn't stand up against this.

no point i guess .. those who desire to obey god are obeying god , they have grown up and are doing his will (living on the meat ) they who don't are still busy squabbling over the milk bottle

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved from the Physical and Life Sciences Forum to the Creation and Evolution forum.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[MrBrain]

Most of the bones have decomposed into humus

 

[MasonP]

It is not to give us doubt but to test our faith. God has made our earthly lives in a way to test our faith and see if we stay strong. The reward being heaven for those who succeed.

So many Gods and so many tests, if heaven is peace then everything alive will eventually succeed.