• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Apes descended from Humans – NOT the other way around.

Does this mean that every scientist in every field through out the planet has been under the control of "the government" for centuries?

What exactly have you been trying to say all along,what exactly is YOUR agenda?


To show the system is broken and no longer credible
 
The IPCC did what it was suppose to do,expose scientists who are being coerced to provide result false results.
Your trying to make it sound like every scientist theory in every scientific field is suspect.

What exactly is YOUR agenda.

The IPCC did this where?
 
Posting in this thread is like smacking your head off the wall. It feels so good when you step away for a while.
 
Posting in this thread is like smacking your head off the wall. It feels so good when you step away for a while.

One big difference, though. There's actually a slight chance you won't come away from smacking your head against a wall dumber than when you started.

With this thread, decreased mental faculties are assured.
 
One big difference, though. There's actually a slight chance you won't come away from smacking your head against a wall dumber than when you started.

With this thread, decreased mental faculties are assured.

:prof proof that humans still can descend into apes
 
Last edited:
I notice no response to the links that show peer review is broken
 
I notice no response to the links that show peer review is broken

When you actually interpret those links correctly, then there can be some discussion about them. But if you continue to fail to understand what is being talked about in those links, there's really no point. You are under the assumption that peer review is nothing more than agreement with the findings, which is simply false. You are also under the assumption that peer review is a uniform process across the board, which again, it is not.

You also seem to think that the presence of flaws in the peer review system automatically means all peer-reviewed material should be discarded in favor of faith-based belief in fairy tales, which is just plain silly.
 
I notice no response to the links that show peer review is broken

Here it comes:

link 1: The Limits and Power of Peer Review

he peer reviewer begins with the assumption that he’s not being lied to, and his charge is that of referee rather than sleuth. The question Do the data support the conclusions? comes more naturally than Did this guy simply make this up?...

...Scientific fraud of the sort involving deliberate fabrication of data or selective reporting of data is not as easy for journal editors or peer reviewers to detect.

This link is address a legitimate concern, however the concern is with fraudulent individuals submitting data, and a shortcoming in being able to ferret this out. It is NOT addressing any fraud or wrongdoing in the peer review process, or that this process lacks credibility. It is merely discussing limitations of it.

In a group that consists of millions of people worldwide regardless of what that group is it is inevitable that there would be a few that would be dishonest and potentially be fraudulent, this is not a condemnation or an issue with science or with peer review, it is an issue with basic human nature.

further down after the 2 examples there is this:

Peer reviewers don’t judge whether or not experiments have actually been performed and reported completely. Often such judgments can only be made after extensive familiarity with an author’s work

this indicates that while there is always room to discuss the limitations and how to overcome them, there is one thing that is integral here, people that have extensive familiarity with the subject (and in this case the individuals work even) are essential to perform this duty.

You have been asked this by several people here, what would you have in its place? How could we expect someone not familiar with the subject material to ferret the inevitable few fraudsters when extensive familiarity would be required. Geez the experts can't accomplish this.. lets send in the amateurs (who will take up this task?). Or shall we have scientific anarchy? That sounds fun, albeit disastrous.

This is not anything related to the argument or the stance regarding peer review you are putting up here. It does not show that the peer review process is fraudulent, it does not show that the peer review process is dishonest, or to be mistrusted, it shows that some INDIVIDUALS can be dishonest -- stop the presses this is shocking I tell ya..

----------------------------------------------------------
ok next - your blog link :roll:

link 2: Has the peer review process lost credibility? | Sandy Starr | Independent Battle of Ideas Blogs

I am going to leave your source alone despite the bullseye painted on it, instead I will discuss the 4 things he in turn sources for evidence.

link 2a: "Andrew Wakefield’s influential 1998 paper suggesting a connection between autism and the MMR vaccine is fully retracted by the journal that originally published it."

Retraction

it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al 1 are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.

This is what they are supposed to do, not a damnation of peer review at all. They learn the paper is flawed, they retract it.

link 2b: "Thousands of leaked emails appear to show climate scientists colluding to suppress the publication of research."

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review | Fred Pearce | Environment | The Guardian
the climate gate email, this is discussed all over the place in other threads and other topics, and that article is frankly way too long to go through in its entirety. I will touch on one thing that jumped at me before i decided it was tl;dr for a rehash of old news, their first example:

Here is how it worked in one case... [insert talk about a rejected paper authored by Kamel for a while]

...Kamel says he no longer has a copy of the anonymous referee judgments on the paper, so we don't know why it was rejected.

So the primary and initial example in this link is based on.. drum roll please.. pure supposition.

link 2c: "14 eminent stem cell biologists complain that an obstructive clique has been blocking the publication of research."

Open letter to Senior Editors of peer-review journals publishing in the field of stem cell biology | Europe's stem cell hub | EuroStemCell

I read the letter, I cannot see how it supports the claim your blog author made above. Its an open letter suggesting a way to increase transparency, nothing wrong here. But I don;t know if anyone is reading this wall of text read it yourself and tell me if I am missing something.

link 2d: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is taken to task for predicating its Fourth Assessment Report on ‘grey literature’."

Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim - environment - 08 January 2010 - New Scientist

hmm...

Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

we have discussed the IPCC quite enough already they have nothing to do with academic peer review.

link 2e: "A computer-generated hoax paper from the ‘Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology’ (CRAP) is accepted for publication in the Open Information Science Journal."

I looked in a few places to see what this open journal is.

First preliminary search, was wikipedia of it at all, so its not a major credible journal:

List of scientific journals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then I searched ERIC (Educational Resources Information center) for both Open Information Science Journal, and for its acronym name of TOISJ. not a mention of it there either, so now we discover that it is at best a rather minor journal, and also the fact that it is not listed here is an indicator that it is not very reputable.

So I tried to search the Directory of Open Journals to try to find it, this one is much more narrow in scope since it was an open journal (this is a bit of a warning flag in and of itself). I came up empty here as well.

What does this tell us? This is some small two bit journal (which anyone can start and run) that does not pop anywhere when searching for it - not even in a directory dedicated to open journals, hardly a reason for anything it does to be a damnation of peer review.

---------------------------------------------------------
ok, that is the first two of your three links, I am tired of typing, I may or may not come back to the third, but in short it is very similar to the first, examining limitations and suggesting means of improving the process (such as the number of submissions swamping the publications). This is a good thing, self evaluation and suggesting how to improve the process is good, stagnation gets us nowhere, and there is always room for improvement, especially in a world where the way we share and transfer data has accelerated greatly, and the advances of science and the amount of papers as a result has followed suit.

This link is not the damnation of the process you were wanting to hoist this off as either. if anyone else is so compelled I will leave it to them to address this in more detail, I am tired, and I know that this is basically a wasted effort.

You are going to disregard everything I wrote and attempt to dismiss it with a few pithy comments from your limited playbook, but it is there for everyone else to read and to judge for themselves
 
Last edited:
When you actually interpret those links correctly, then there can be some discussion about them. But if you continue to fail to understand what is being talked about in those links, there's really no point. You are under the assumption that peer review is nothing more than agreement with the findings, which is simply false. You are also under the assumption that peer review is a uniform process across the board, which again, it is not.

You also seem to think that the presence of flaws in the peer review system automatically means all peer-reviewed material should be discarded in favor of faith-based belief in fairy tales, which is just plain silly.

Peer review is broken
 
Here it comes:

link 1: The Limits and Power of Peer Review



This link is address a legitimate concern, however the concern is with fraudulent individuals submitting data, and a shortcoming in being able to ferret this out. It is NOT addressing any fraud or wrongdoing in the peer review process, or that this process lacks credibility. It is merely discussing limitations of it.

In a group that consists of millions of people worldwide regardless of what that group is it is inevitable that there would be a few that would be dishonest and potentially be fraudulent, this is not a condemnation or an issue with science or with peer review, it is an issue with basic human nature.

further down after the 2 examples there is this:



this indicates that while there is always room to discuss the limitations and how to overcome them, there is one thing that is integral here, people that have extensive familiarity with the subject (and in this case the individuals work even) are essential to perform this duty.

You have been asked this by several people here, what would you have in its place? How could we expect someone not familiar with the subject material to ferret the inevitable few fraudsters when extensive familiarity would be required. Geez the experts can't accomplish this.. lets send in the amateurs (who will take up this task?). Or shall we have scientific anarchy? That sounds fun, albeit disastrous.

This is not anything related to the argument or the stance regarding peer review you are putting up here. It does not show that the peer review process is fraudulent, it does not show that the peer review process is dishonest, or to be mistrusted, it shows that some INDIVIDUALS can be dishonest -- stop the presses this is shocking I tell ya..

----------------------------------------------------------
ok next - your blog link :roll:

link 2: Has the peer review process lost credibility? | Sandy Starr | Independent Battle of Ideas Blogs

I am going to leave your source alone despite the bullseye painted on it, instead I will discuss the 4 things he in turn sources for evidence.

link 2a: "Andrew Wakefield’s influential 1998 paper suggesting a connection between autism and the MMR vaccine is fully retracted by the journal that originally published it."

Retraction



This is what they are supposed to do, not a damnation of peer review at all. They learn the paper is flawed, they retract it.

link 2b: "Thousands of leaked emails appear to show climate scientists colluding to suppress the publication of research."

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review | Fred Pearce | Environment | The Guardian
the climate gate email, this is discussed all over the place in other threads and other topics, and that article is frankly way too long to go through in its entirety. I will touch on one thing that jumped at me before i decided it was tl;dr for a rehash of old news, their first example:



So the primary and initial example in this link is based on.. drum roll please.. pure supposition.

link 2c: "14 eminent stem cell biologists complain that an obstructive clique has been blocking the publication of research."

Open letter to Senior Editors of peer-review journals publishing in the field of stem cell biology | Europe's stem cell hub | EuroStemCell

I read the letter, I cannot see how it supports the claim your blog author made above. Its an open letter suggesting a way to increase transparency, nothing wrong here. But I don;t know if anyone is reading this wall of text read it yourself and tell me if I am missing something.

link 2d: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is taken to task for predicating its Fourth Assessment Report on ‘grey literature’."

Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim - environment - 08 January 2010 - New Scientist

hmm...



we have discussed the IPCC quite enough already they have nothing to do with academic peer review.

link 2e: "A computer-generated hoax paper from the ‘Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology’ (CRAP) is accepted for publication in the Open Information Science Journal."

I looked in a few places to see what this open journal is.

First preliminary search, was wikipedia of it at all, so its not a major credible journal:

List of scientific journals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then I searched ERIC (Educational Resources Information center) for both Open Information Science Journal, and for its acronym name of TOISJ. not a mention of it there either, so now we discover that it is at best a rather minor journal, and also the fact that it is not listed here is an indicator that it is not very reputable.

So I tried to search the Directory of Open Journals to try to find it, this one is much more narrow in scope since it was an open journal (this is a bit of a warning flag in and of itself). I came up empty here as well.

What does this tell us? This is some small two bit journal (which anyone can start and run) that does not pop anywhere when searching for it - not even in a directory dedicated to open journals, hardly a reason for anything it does to be a damnation of peer review.

---------------------------------------------------------
ok, that is the first two of your three links, I am tired of typing, I may or may not come back to the third, but in short it is very similar to the first, examining limitations and suggesting means of improving the process (such as the number of submissions swamping the publications). This is a good thing, self evaluation and suggesting how to improve the process is good, stagnation gets us nowhere, and there is always room for improvement, especially in a world where the way we share and transfer data has accelerated greatly, and the advances of science and the amount of papers as a result has followed suit.

This link is not the damnation of the process you were wanting to hoist this off as either. if anyone else is so compelled I will leave it to them to address this in more detail, I am tired, and I know that this is basically a wasted effort.

You are going to disregard everything I wrote and attempt to dismiss it with a few pithy comments from your limited playbook, but it is there for everyone else to read and to judge for themselves

So you attack a source. Surprise surprise. The fact is you can not admit peer review is no longer working it is now corrupt and over burdened.
 
So you attack a source. Surprise surprise. The fact is you can not admit peer review is no longer working it is now corrupt and over burdened.
Seriously?

He's analyzing the sources and explaining how they are inadequate.

How ELSE is he supposed to prove to you that your position is incorrect?
 
Seriously?

He's analyzing the sources and explaining how they are inadequate.

How ELSE is he supposed to prove to you that your position is incorrect?

Shows he has nothing to address the facts. People never address the facts always attack the source when the facts are correct.

The truth is scientists are not happy with peer review as my sources show.
 
So you attack a source. Surprise surprise. The fact is you can not admit peer review is no longer working it is now corrupt and over burdened.

huh? I addressed the contents of the sources and their specific points all the way through my post, but as was predicted you would dismiss it all with a pithy comment from your limited playbook.

Is it that you refuse to see any of the post other than one eye rolling smiley, and a comment about a bullseye? These were then followed by a detailed specific refutation of the contents of the source.

Or does addressing the contents of a source equal attacking the source for you? If so then it is impossible for this game to be played.
 
Last edited:
Seriously?

He's analyzing the sources and explaining how they are inadequate.

How ELSE is he supposed to prove to you that your position is incorrect?

actually it is above and beyond this, I am analyzing the information the sources offer, I am making no judgements on the source, nor am I attacking the source in any way.
 
huh? I addressed the contents of the sources and their specific points all the way through my post, but as was predicted you would dismiss it all with a pithy comment from your limited playbook.

Is it that you refuse to see any of the post other than one eye rolling smiley, and a comment about a bullseye? These were then followed by a detailed specific refutation of the contents of the source.

Or does addressing the contents of a source equal attacking the source for you? If so then it is impossible for this game to be played.

No you gave opinions and attacked a source. You proved nothing

The second link called minor like it was not worth addressing. That is attacking the source I guess you could not find fault in its facts
 
Last edited:
No you gave opinions and attacked a source. You proved nothing

The second link called minor like it was not worth addressing. That is attacking the source I guess you could not find fault in its facts

All I have to say at this point is you have got to be ****ing kidding me.
 
Posting in this thread is like smacking your head off the wall. It feels so good when you step away for a while.

There are a few an old Discordian sayings when it comes to threads like this:

"When it comes to internet forum debating,sometimes beating the person you are debating is not as important as the number of people who pressed the "like" button on what you have to say.
(and in baseball terms,I'm batting over .400.Not to shabby at all.Definitely a guaranteed spot in the All Star game)

"Sometimes trying to convince your opponent you are right is not as important as convincing everyone else who is viewing the thread."

"Sometimes it is better to be wrong,admit it, and apologize, then to be right and have everyone on the thread still think you are a total jerkwad".
 
There are a few an old Discordian sayings when it comes to threads like this:

"When it comes to internet forum debating,sometimes beating the person you are debating is not as important as the number of people who pressed the "like" button on what you have to say.
(and in baseball terms,I'm batting over .400.Not to shabby at all.Definitely a guaranteed spot in the All Star game)

"Sometimes trying to convince your opponent you are right is not as important as convincing everyone else who is viewing the thread."

"Sometimes it is better to be wrong,admit it, and apologize, then to be right and have everyone on the thread still think you are a total jerkwad".

I don't really think I'll change ptif219's position however obviously I highlight the flaws in his argument, but I keep trying anyway.
 
Shows he has nothing to address the facts. People never address the facts always attack the source when the facts are correct.

The truth is scientists are not happy with peer review as my sources show.

Shows he has nothing to address but the facts. People attack the source when the facts are incorrect.

The truth is scientists are not happy with my sources.

There. fixed it for you.
 
All I have to say at this point is you have got to be ****ing kidding me.

Not at all Your opinions mean nothing.

What does this tell us? This is some small two bit journal (which anyone can start and run) that does not pop anywhere when searching for it - not even in a directory dedicated to open journals, hardly a reason for anything it does to be a damnation of peer review.
 
Shows he has nothing to address but the facts. People attack the source when the facts are incorrect.

The truth is scientists are not happy with my sources.

There. fixed it for you.

As always you make smart ass comments that mean nothing
 
Back
Top Bottom