Where are all the bones?

[Radrook]

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

The articles I posted concerning the flaws of peer review demonstrate that they habitually tend to quack.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The articles I posted concerning the flaws of peer review demonstrate that they habitually tend to quack.

No. You said atheist and agnostic scientists tended to quack. But your link said nothing about the religious beliefs of the scientists. You are the one who made the connection, but that connection seems to be based on nothing more than your own beliefs.

 

[Radrook]

No. You said atheist and agnostic scientists tended to quack. But your link said nothing about the religious beliefs of the scientists. You are the one who made the connection, but that connection seems to be based on nothing more than your own beliefs.

I never claimed that creationist scientists are impervious to quackery.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I never claimed that creationist scientists are impervious to quackery.

You made the claim that atheist and agnostic scientists were guilty of 'quacking'. Yet you presented no evidence to back up your claim, just a link that says some scientists were guilty of exploiting peer review.

 

[RickG]

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.

Radrook, I am not denying that there are not any unethical scientists, unethical people propagate all walks of life. But the quackery we are talking about is with the scientific literature. There is some that gets through in mainstream science, which is seen only in "outline journals". That is journals who have reviewers reviewing outside of their expertise. Those journals are frowned upon with the greater scientific community because of that. Additionally, you need to look at post peer review. That is when an article gets published, it is seen by the entire scientific community. Most journals have 'an letters to the editor' section, where opposing views are seen. You have yet to provide a legitimate scientific fraud by mainstream science. Why? Because all your examples are from the 'creation science' community, who are the true abusers.

 

[Radrook]

Radrook, I am not denying that there are not any unethical scientists, unethical people propagate all walks of life. But the quackery we are talking about is with the scientific literature. There is some that gets through in mainstream science, which is seen only in "outline journals". That is journals who have reviewers reviewing outside of their expertise. Those journals are frowned upon with the greater scientific community because of that. Additionally, you need to look at post peer review. That is when an article gets published, it is seen by the entire scientific community. Most journals have 'an letters to the editor' section, where opposing views are seen. You have yet to provide a legitimate scientific fraud by mainstream science. Why? Because all your examples are from the 'creation science' community, who are the true abusers.

I will examine the sources list I provided to see if your accusation that it all comes from creationists is true. Be right back.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full

That isn't a creationist site my friend. Yet it admits that there is quackery running rampant among PEER reviewers. Also, I as I keep repeatedly pointing out but to no avail, your scientists themselves found the Haeckl's drawings flawed. Creationists are merely drawing attention to what your scientists themselves found offensive and unscientific about his drawings.

Quotation of scientist or experts in another field to support a viewpoint is a legitimate, acceptable way to establish a point. Your only claim to its illegitimacy is that Creationists use it. That is a false premise since it bears absolutely no relevance to its accuracy as I also keep pointing out but also to no avail.

So to avoid further waste of valuable time I think its best to agree to disagree and I will leave the discussion to others with more time and willingness to keep repeating than I have.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I will examine the sources list I provided to see if your accusation that it all comes from creationists is true. Be right back.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full

That isn't a creationist site my friend. Yet it admits that there is quackery running rampant among PEER reviewers.

And it actually looks like RickG's claim is once again correct: people can't find evidence of physical scientists abusing peer review, only medical scientists and doctors.

 

[RickG]

.

I will examine the sources list I provided to see if your accusation that it all comes from creationists is true. Be right back.

You might want to visit my thread concerning original research and data in the creation science literature.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/my-creation-science-challenge.7947872/

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full

That isn't a creationist site my friend. Yet it admits that there is quackery running rampant among PEER reviewers.

Completely irrelevant. We are talking about the physical earth sciences here. Your reference concerns the medical literature.

 

[Radrook]

.

You might want to visit my thread concerning original research and data in the creation science literature.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/my-creation-science-challenge.7947872/


Completely irrelevant. We are talking about the physical earth sciences here. Your reference concerns the medical literature.

Now you are disqualifying scientists in the medical field as being relevant to peer review by scientists issue. That is shifting the rules of the playing field. Since that is your modus operandi, I prefer to move on. Thanks for the interesting discussion. God bless!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now you are disqualifying scientists in the medical field as being relevant to peer review by scientists issue. That is shifting the rules of the playing field. Since that is your modus operandi, I prefer to move on. Thanks for the interesting discussion. God bless!

No, it's called being accurate. The physical sciences (the study of the Earth, biology, geology, chemistry and physics) are completely different to the medical sciences.

 

[Radrook]

And it actually looks like RickG's claim is once again correct: people can't find evidence of physical scientists abusing peer review, only medical scientists and doctors.

The issue is the inherent integrity and value of peer review process, not what TYPE of scientist are involved.

 

[RickG]

Now you are disqualifying scientists in the medical field as being relevant to peer review by scientists issue. That is shifting the rules of the playing field.

No, you presented the Red Herring. We are not discussing medical science here.

Since that is your modus operandi, I prefer to move on. Thanks for the interesting discussion. God bless!

Conversely, when I'm wrong I don't mind admitting it. It is a valuable learning process.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The issue is the inherent integrity and value of peer review process, not what TYPE of scientist are involved.

And you have been unable to show that this is something that happens in the physical sciences community, only in the medical sciences community.

 

[Radrook]

No, it's called being accurate. The physical sciences (the study of the Earth, biology, geology, chemistry and physics) are completely different to the medical sciences.

The issue, as you brought it up-was the value of peer review process-not which type of scientists were involved which is totally irrelevant to whether the PEER REVIEW SYSTEM works or not.

Again you are shifting.

 

[RickG]

The issue is the inherent integrity and value of peer review process, not what TYPE of scientist are involved.

However, the examples you provided were in the physical sciences. The irrelevant support for them were in the medical sciences. A huge red herring.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The issue, as you brought it up-was the value of peer review process-not which type of scientists were involved which is totally irrelevant to whether the PEER REVIEW SYSTEM works or not.

Again you are shifting.

But you have not been able to show that it is something that happens in the physical sciences community. No-one is denying that it's happening in the medical sciences, but you have shown nothing of it happening in the physical sciences community, the community which is the community that 'creationist scientists' claim to be a part of.

 

[Radrook]

No, you presented the Red Herring. We are not discussing medical science here.

Since that is your modus operandi, I prefer to move on. Thanks for the interesting discussion. God bless![/QUOTE]
Conversely, when I'm wrong I don't mind admitting it. It is a valuable learning process.[/QUOTE]


True, we are not discussing medical science. We are discussing peer review and I presented other sources which are not concerning peer review in relation to medical science which you are ignoring. Is that honesty? Is it honesty to shift that way?

BTW
If you want the quote marks to work both must be either upper case or lower. Mixsing them up will not work.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The issue, as you brought it up-was the value of peer review process-not which type of scientists were involved which is totally irrelevant to whether the PEER REVIEW SYSTEM works or not.

Again you are shifting.

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.

 

[Radrook]

But you have not been able to show that it is something that happens in the physical sciences community. No-one is denying that it's happening in the medical sciences, but you have shown nothing of it happening in the physical sciences community, the community which is the community that 'creationist scientists' claim to be a part of.

Here is another example of how peer review isn't as efficient or impervious to quackery as you claim it to be:

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/?articles.view/articleNo/34518/title/Opinion--Scientific-Peer-Review-in-Crisis/

BTW
In view of all the retractions which are common within the scientific community concerning peer reviewed approved declarations involving evolution, it seems a bit quaint that you make such bombastic claims.

 

[RickG]

True, we are not discussing medical science. We are discussing peer review and I presented other sources which are not concerning peer review in relation to medical science which you are ignoring. Is that honesty? Is it honesty to shift that way?

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.

BTW
If you want the quote marks to work both must be either upper case or lower. Mixsing them up will not work.

I already fixed them. We all have typos.