Pranking Christian call show

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Theologists, you mean? No need, my second supervisor is actually a theologist. But really, I'd take the opinion of people who work in science over those who don't.

Well the term is Theologian, but no that is not what I meant. What about the opinion of creationists who work in science or do they conveniently not count?

Never met one. Unlikely to ever meet one. However, see below:

Common sense really. Creation science doesn't exist, because its nonsense.

An appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy; do you have any arguments that are not logically fallacious?

It's not circular to say that something that isn't a science isn't a science.

Sure, but that’s not what you said. You claimed creation science wasn’t a science because it doesn’t feature in any research department you know of. That’s an absurd standard; something is not deemed scientific or unscientific by whether or not it is featured in a research department that you know of. Creationists do scientific research. What this all boils down to is, you all do not like creationists so therefore you do not believe they are scientists, well forgive me for rejecting that arbitrary standard. You’ve given me no actual justification for the definition of science excluding creationists.

I don't care about creationists, they don't feature on mine or anyone else's daily life that I know of. In the UK you're more likely to come across an albino than a YEC. But you're actually inferring a position I don't hold. I laugh at creation science, not creationists doing science. Big difference.

The reason why creation science is tosh is becuase creationism, specifically YEC, is demonstrably a fairy tale. Other forms are assertion without evidence. You want evidence of fallacious reasoning? That's it. Otherwise it's all mental gymnastics, why I see you displaying rather well on this forum this far. No researcher worth her grant will research into creationism becuase it's like pissing money into the wind. Unless your grant is provided by a theological foundation, in which case, they can waste their money on whatever they want.

So, to reiterate, That creationists do 'science' is neither here nor there. If the research is sound it would be fallicious of me to reject it based on their personal beliefs. If they do 'creation' science, however, then I can point and laugh, as can everyone else.

That's not true.

It absolutely is true, if you’re working on something that is going to shake the foundation of science, there is no way you’re getting it published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example…

Watson’s and Crick’s groundbreaking work on DNA was never peer-reviewed
J. R Mayer’s work on the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in 1842 was rejected by the peer-review system even though it’s now a cornerstone of modern physics
Stephen Hawkings initial proofs and work concerning the existence of singularities were never peer-reviewed.
Fermi’s work on weak interaction theory of beta decay was rejected by the peer-review process
Darwin’s On the Origins of Species, and The Descent of Man were never peer-reviewed
Newton’s Principia Mathematica was never peer-reviewed.
Einstein’s Relativity, The Special and General Theory was never peer-reviewed
Copernicus' De Revolutionibus was never peer-reviewed
Robert H. Michell’s work on signalling reaction by hormones was rejected by the peer-review system.
Hans Krebs's work on the citric acid cycle was rejected by the peer-review system but later won a Nobel Prize.
Harmut Michel’s work that won the 1988 Nobel prize for chemistry was rejected by the peer-review system.

If you want to conduct further research upon an already generally accepted view in science, then peer-review is the place to go, but if you want to engage in truly groundbreaking research that will change science forever (i.e. Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hawkings, and Copernicus), then peer-review is not the place to go.

“Mention 'peer review' and almost every scientist will regale you with stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and steal the glory."- “Peer Review and Quality: A Dubious Connection?", Science Volume 293.

Any my reply; so? Why are you ignoring the countless tomes of research that has been published in PR articles that have lead to countless breakthroughs in the scientific literature?

You seem to judge a 'breakthrough' as something that equals relativity, or gravity and so on. This is simply ignorance to the scientific method and the advances that are made on a daily basis about things you've probably never even heard of or considered. 'Change science forever' - that happens on a daily basis, mate. You just don't know anything about it.

'Conducting research on a generally accepted view' - If what you say were the case, then there wouldn't be won't breakthrough or advances in knowledge at all, would there?

Ones work needs to be reviewed by others that are necessarily competitors to you. Otherwise, familiarity will breed contempt, and poor research.

As for the science article, I will peruse when I'm finished at work this evening. Good to see you quoting from a peer reviwed, high impact science journal.

Nonsense. All aceademic books worth their weight are reviewed by editors, publishers, and, yes, their peers in peer review. Research in contemporary science literature that's worth the paper it's written on will be be peer reviwed in some shape or form during the course of its inception to publication. This is a fact. Most academic texts for example (including text books for undergraduates) will have chapters published in research journals of varying impact factors for validation (among other things; advertising for one).

You seem to be confounding the act of having a peer review your work and actually submitting your work to the peer-review system. You’re trying to argue that good science needs to be submitted to the peer-review system, I am pointing out that you’re wrong. A great deal of the best science the world has ever known was either never submitted to the peer-review system or was rejected by it.

The process of peer-review, whether it be through the board of a journal or through the peer review system of a publisher (who, by the way, do give texts submitted to people who are both in and out of the field that the text is aimed at, which is actually in many cases a much more rigorous peer review system than what is employed in some low to medium impact journals) is integral to the entirety of the scientific schools. There are few exceptions to the rule. I don't know why but you seem you be convinced that 'peer-review' is the system exclusively utilised by journals.

If you publish something that isn't reviewed by your peers, competitors or otherwise, then what's to say that your methodology or even your findings aren't totally bogus and not worthy of the paper they're written on. And besides, the peer review system has little to do with content, more to do with the structure of the methodology and format of the article. At least, it should be, which is where I actually agree with you (as you state above in another post).

I put it to you that your understanding of 'best science' is very narrow and poorly defined.

Also, did you know that a lot of scientific research today is done in collaborative partnerships with institutions around the world? Many hundreds of millions of pounds can go into research sometimes, and often it will necessitate a collaborative effort form various researchers, sometimes in different field (eg CERN as one example). Internal and external peer review is one the staples of such partnerships as many interested parties means that everyone will wish for the research to be as transparent and as accessible as possible.

You are still confounding the issue; something does not have to be accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in order to be considered good science. That’s a misconception held by lay persons.

“Unable or unwilling to investigate scientific methodology and determine just what is orthodox and "generally accepted," the Ninth Circuit instead seized upon publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal as the badge of respectability, the sine qua non of admissible "good science." The court thereby converted that editorial tool into something no scientist or journal editor ever meant it to be: a litmus test for scientific truth. This is not the way scientists work in their laboratories and symposia”- Stephen Jay Gould (1993)

The peer review system is not simply to accept what is already known. If this were true, there would be no advances in scientific enquiry outside of the realms of what you define as 'currently accepted' theories or methodological enterprises. I know a lot of stuff for example that goes on with regards to anti-biotic resistance and research into gram-negative/positive bacterial evolution that you would never have heard of, which is changing the face of science and our understand forever.

Just because its not as famous as relativity doesn't mean it isn't excellent ground breaking science. All of it can be found in peer reviwed literatures online.

Your attempt to patronise me as a 'lay person' might hold some ground if it wasnt coming out of your rear end. When was the last time you submitted any original research? To anyone?

Is it perfect? No, not at all, but it is the best system by a country mile for ensuring sound methodological enterprises and the uniform testing of results.

Something being the best system simply because it is the only current system is not that impressive. We can do better.

Missing the point. But whatever. Nobody is claiming perfection because that is impossible, but its a fluid system that evolves and adapts as time moves forward.

And in fact, statler, regarding your point above about some recommendations of amendments to the peer review methodology, I actually agree that some of the points you raise are worth considering and worth further examination.