Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
I never claimed that creationist scientists are impervious to quackery.
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.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.
I will examine the sources list I provided to see if your accusation that it all comes from creationists is true. Be right back.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.
You might want to visit my thread concerning original research and data in the creation science literature.I will examine the sources list I provided to see if your accusation that it all comes from creationists is true. Be right back.
Completely irrelevant. We are talking about the physical earth sciences here. Your reference concerns the medical literature.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.
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!.
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!
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.
No, you presented the Red Herring. We are not discussing medical science here.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.
Conversely, when I'm wrong I don't mind admitting it. It is a valuable learning process.Since that is your modus operandi, I prefer to move on. Thanks for the interesting discussion. God bless!
The issue is the inherent integrity and value of peer review process, not what TYPE of scientist are involved.
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.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.
However, the examples you provided were in the physical sciences. The irrelevant support for them were in the medical sciences. A huge red herring.The issue is the inherent integrity and value of peer review process, not what TYPE of scientist are involved.
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.
Since that is your modus operandi, I prefer to move on. Thanks for the interesting discussion. God bless![/QUOTE]No, you presented the Red Herring. We are not discussing medical science here.
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.
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/
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.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?
I already fixed them. We all have typos.BTW
If you want the quote marks to work both must be either upper case or lower. Mixsing them up will not work.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?