|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Peer Review or BUST?? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
It seems when it comes to Creationists claims they are often refuted with "prove it" or "show some evidence". Since most if not all of what Creation scientists come up with will not be peer reviewed by the "real" Scientists then all we have is Evolutionists saying "PRATT" to new posts or comments. The only "evidence" Evolutionists will take is from the "real" Scientists. Basically Creation Scientists are censored. They do have their own peer reviewed journals, which can be used for evidence but not so with Evolutionists.
So, what to do? Well, since most of us aren't PZ Myers or Kenneth Miller we get our information from sources. Both sources are peer reviewed but only one source is recognized. Does everyone believe every single thing they see on the news? Or just what's reported? Sometimes it's whats not being reported. There are other sources. Just because they refuse (yes refuse)to peer review Creation Scientists it does not mean we are lying or trying to deceive. We just happen to believe the evidence that is presented to us like Evolutionists do when it's presented to them. Also, most evolutionists like to say they have Science and evidence to back up their claims and we have the Bible or silly Creationist websites. If Creation Scientists are out there doing research ( and a lot of them are ) and they have journals of peer reviewed articles why can we not reference them? Why doesn't it "count"? Most of you are not out there researching and testing like they are. Yes, we get a lot of info from Creationists websites which are very informative IMO and there is a checks and balances system they go by. Education is sort of one sided since TOE is the only thing taught in Schools. So if you have a Phd for instance and a Christian doesn't the evidence is still the evidence no matter your education. If the Evolutionists will never take our evidence serious what's the use? {This message 1 was message 4 of the "Proposed New Topic" version - Adminnemooseus} {Some past peer review topics: Refereed (peer reviewed) Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?, Links on Peer Review Process, Peer Review Conspiracy, peer reviewed-int. design?, The State of Peer Review - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Topic promotion information. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : List of previous relevant topics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
As time goes by, I think less and less of peer review: frankly, it doesn't work that well. Most peer reviewed findings are wrong, and many "peer reviewed" journals are utter rags. However, it does provide a minimum hurdle that keeps a certain portion of utter drivel out of the scientific press.
That aside, it's simply not true that "Basically Creation Scientists are censored", if a Creation Scientist produced proper compelling research casting doubt on evolution they wouldn't just pass peer review they'd be published with fanfare in the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. The reason they're not is because they're not producing good science. In fact, there are very few Creation Scientists who are actually doing anything recognisable as science. And this is the reason they're not getting published.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Chuck, have you actually read many of the threads on this site? There are dozens of them dealing with creation science research and not simply dismissing it for not having appeared in a mainstream peer reviewed journal.
The thing is though that publication is not the end point of scientific review and research, it is the point where that work becomes open to wider scrutiny. The fact is that a lot of creation science research doesn't stand up to that further scrutiny, which is not unconnected to why it doesn't get published in mainstream peer reviewed journals. If people have access to these peer reviewed creation science papers then nothing stops them from presenting that data. The fact is that in the vast majority of cases creationists/IDists are much more ready to present claims than they are to present data. Have you considered actually starting a thread to discuss such research rather than just complaining about how you can't before you even try? Of course if the research is going to be something from several years back such as Baumgardner's flood models or the RATE study then there is a better chance that people will discount it as a PRATT simply because they are things that have been already been repeatedly discussed here and in other places. If you think you have something good from Answers, Journal of Creation, CRSQ, IJCR or whatever technical Creation science journal you are thinking of then just start a thread with a post giving a reference and an outline of the research and what you want to discuss about it. TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
s time goes by, I think less and less of peer review: frankly, it doesn't work that well. Most peer reviewed findings are wrong, and many "peer reviewed" journals are utter rags. I think this is a mistaken view of "peer-review". A published paper is not "correct" in any form - it is simply of (supposedly) sufficient quality to be broadcast for journal's readership. The true peer-review is in the extended discourse arising from the paper's contents, which may take the form of further papers, letters, private communications, etc. Peer-review is an extended process. The most damning peer-review is silence. At least as important as the paper is its citation index.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
cavediver writes: I think this is a mistaken view of "peer-review". A published paper is not "correct" in any form - it is simply of (supposedly) sufficient quality to be broadcast for journal's readership. That was pretty much what I was saying.
The true peer-review is in the extended discourse arising from the paper's contents, which may take the form of further papers, letters, private communications, etc. Peer-review is an extended process. The most damning peer-review is silence. At least as important as the paper is its citation index. Indeed, but that kind of peer review is not the kind of peer review that determines whether or not something is published in the peer reviewed press.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Since most if not all of what Creation scientists come up with will not be peer reviewed by the "real" Scientists ... Just because they refuse (yes refuse)to peer review Creation Scientists ... But this is not true. Hardly any creationists submit their stuff to scientific journals; but when they do they are certainly reviewed. And then rejected 'cos of being crap:
Reviewer comments regarding rejected articles complained about poor presentation ("ramblings..."; "no coherent arguments..."; "high-school theme quality..."; "tendentious essay not suitable for publication anywhere..."; "more like a long letter than a referenced article"), and failure to follow accepted scientific canons ("no systematic treatment..."; "does not define terms... "; "flawed arguments... "; "failure to acknowledge and use extensive literature on particular questions ...") There's peer-review for you. Of course, you are free to present whatever arguments you like on these forums: there is no requirement for peer-review. Heaven forbid that we should hold creationists to the same standards as we hold scientists to, or what would we have to talk about? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
"Chuck77" writes:
Does this seem unreasonable to you? It seems when it comes to Creationists claims they are often refuted with "prove it" or "show some evidence".A claim without evidence is just simply that: a claim; a bare assertion. It wouldn't be accepted in a court of law and it is not sufficient in science either. "Chuck77" writes:
When people accuse an argument of being a PRATT they are not ignoring evidence: they are saying that the evidence presented has been examined and found to be false - many times. It is not a refusal to accept 'real' evidence - it is an insistence on evidence being valid. Since most if not all of what Creation scientists come up with will not be peer reviewed by the "real" Scientists then all we have is Evolutionists saying "PRATT" to new posts or comments. The only "evidence" Evolutionists will take is from the "real" Scientists. Would you accept that god was dead if someone provided a photoshop'ed picture of a dead bearded man? No, you wouldn't.Is that because you refuse to accept 'real' evidence? No. It is because you would not accept false evidence. "Chuck77" writes:
And those websites often declare that they will never accept any scientific conclusions that contradict their interpretation of the bible. Also, most evolutionists like to say they have Science and evidence to back up their claims and we have the Bible or silly Creationist websites.Do you think that is a valid way to do science? "Chuck77" writes:
You seem to be under the misapprehension that 'evolutionists' are atheists. Even Darwin was a christian. If the Evolutionists will never take our evidence serious what's the use?Scientists will look at any evidence, but they will not accept faulty evidence - and nor (I hope) would you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Peer review is an imperfect system.
That said, we need to distinguish between different kinds of reports. An empirical report, with real data, is very different from a theoretical report with a lot of philosophy. If Einstein's theory of relativity had been proposed in 1800, people would have laughed at it as obvious nonsense. However, if the Michelson-Morley experiment had been done in 1800, that would have been taken seriously. That's the distinction between theoretical advances and empirical discoveries. Nevertheless, theoretical advances are important to science. However, their acceptability depends on the zeitgeist. It is my impression that Galileo had to do a lot of marketing of his ideas, and it is probably that marketing (rather than his experimental data) that got him into trouble with the Church. Peer review is particularly important for empirical results. As far as I know, creation "scientists" can get empirical results peer reviewed if they are properly done, properly controlled, and actually show something of interest. As for proposed theoretical ideas - there's an Internet you can use to get those ideas out. You don't have to depend on peer review.
If Creation Scientists are out there doing research ( and a lot of them are ) and they have journals of peer reviewed articles why can we not reference them?
If those articles are available, then you can certainly cite them in posts here. Expect criticism, particularly criticism about bad methodology. Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Hello, Chuck! Welcome!
If Creation Scientists are out there doing research (and a lot of them are) That sounds like a thread all of its own - can you identify some of these folks that are "doing research" into origins/evolution/etc.? Scientific research? I would prefer people who haven't signed a pledge that "if it disagrees with the Bible it ain't true," but I would look at those, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Chuck do you realy think there is some worldwide atheist/scientist conspiracy to ridicule creation, and supplement it with creation to get you all to turn away from god.
Or do you think there is a more reasonable explanation like creation "science" is sloppy poor science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I think this is a mistaken view of "peer-review". A published paper is not "correct" in any form - it is simply of (supposedly) sufficient quality to be broadcast for journal's readership. The true peer-review is in the extended discourse arising from the paper's contents, which may take the form of further papers, letters, private communications, etc. Peer-review is an extended process. The most damning peer-review is silence. At least as important as the paper is its citation index. cavediver hit it on the nose. The purpose of peer review is make sure that the methodologies have the proper controls and that the data presented supports the tentative claims made by the authors. No one expects a reviewer to repeat the experiments to determine if the data in the paper has been fudged. In my own experience, the main reason that most papers are turned down for publication is the lack of data. Reviewers will often return manuscripts asking for additional experiments that will bolster the conclusions after which the paper will be accepted for publication. Very few papers are rejected outright, and very few are accepted as is for publication. Peer review is only the first hurdle that research must overcome. Once a paper is published a scientist is expected to defend these ideas at conferences where possible, and follow up on the paper with further research to bolster the findings. If the conclusions contradict other research then other scientists will attempt to falsify or verify the findings. Unfortunately, many creationists have decided that their work is so weak that it isn't even worth trying to clear the first hurdle. Instead, it is directly communicated to the scientifically ignorant layity (which makes up a vast majority of the populace) as solid science. They avoid the scientific arena altogether. Can't really say that I blame them given the quality of their work, but that is the state of matters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
It seems when it comes to Creationists claims they are often refuted with "prove it" or "show some evidence". Since most if not all of what Creation scientists come up with will not be peer reviewed by the "real" Scientists then all we have is Evolutionists saying "PRATT" to new posts or comments. The only "evidence" Evolutionists will take is from the "real" Scientists. Basically Creation Scientists are censored. They do have their own peer reviewed journals, which can be used for evidence but not so with Evolutionists. In order to censor something it has to be submitted for publication first. Creaitonists are not even submitting papers so there is nothing to censor. Creationists are like Rosa Parks, except that they want to claim discrimination without ever stepping foot on the bus. If you want to play the persecution card you actually have to suffer persecution first.
Both sources are peer reviewed but only one source is recognized. This is false. Creationist journals are not reviewed by leading researchers in the field of interest. Even more, reviewers often have to sign statements of faith before being allowed to review papers, and papers can be rejected if the conclusions conflict with creationism. Try to find a single real scientific journal that requires a statement of faith. You won't find one.
If Creation Scientists are out there doing research ( and a lot of them are ) and they have journals of peer reviewed articles why can we not reference them? No one is stopping you, so why don't you? Pick your favorite paper, start a thread, and then defend it from criticism. You know, do what scientists do. You could even invite one the authors to discuss the paper with us. This is an open debate forum. No one is stopping creationists from presenting their evidence. So why doesn't it happen?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
From Coragyps "That sounds like a thread all of its own - can you identify some of these folks that are "doing research" into origins/evolution/etc.? Scientific research? I would prefer people who haven't signed a pledge that "if it disagrees with the Bible it ain't true," but I would look at those, too. "
Well, off the top of my head there is Stephen Meyers and Michael Behe for starters. Both of which have been published in "real" Scientific journals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
From Tag "No one is stopping you, so why don't you? Pick your favorite paper, start a thread, and then defend it from criticism. You know, do what scientists do. You could even invite one the authors to discuss the paper with us.
This is an open debate forum. No one is stopping creationists from presenting their evidence. So why doesn't it happen? " Tag, im fairly new here and just getting my feet wet but I will do that soon. I think i'll start will Stephen Meyers peer reviewed article on " Intelligent Design-The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" Published by the proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
From Franko "Chuck do you realy think there is some worldwide atheist/scientist conspiracy to ridicule creation, and supplement it with creation to get you all to turn away from god. "
Yes Franko, I do. It's called Naturalism. No mention of God whatsoever in any Scientific discussions. Well, except for Issac Newton and the Generals of Science that aren't around anymore. Now we have the likes of Richard Dawkins. Ever heard of him Franko? He kind of exposes your own comment. And then there is eugenie Scott, kenneth miller and PZ, who do everything in their power to fight against a god they don;t believe in. So to answer your question it's a big fat yes. I suppose the God delusion by Richard Dawkins is trying to prove the existance of God? Or the flying spagetti monster I forget?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024