(April 11, 2016 at 10:43 pm)The_Empress Wrote:(April 11, 2016 at 10:03 pm)AAA Wrote: Ok, let's clear this up. Yes peer review is a valuable tool used to ensure that work is done correctly. Without it science would be nowhere. However, it is not the only indicator that science is being done. Newton did not have his writings peer reviewed, but he was definitely practicing science.
I'm sorry; what?? Newton has been regularly peer-reviewed for centuries.
And it's a bald-faced lie. It was before the time of scientific journals, but not before peer review. Back then, the few major intellects wrote books and then criticized the works directly, in papers/essays. From one history article about Isaac Newton I found in a quick search:
"Newton was not without his critics, however. Many in the scientific community objected to Newton’s idea of gravity. They said that since he had no logical evidence or proof, then gravity was little more than a supernatural idea. Critics were especially vocal in France where Rene Descartes was the scientific guru that everybody looked up to. The Germans at the time were not too keen on some of Newton’s ideas, either, because they looked up to Gottfried Leibniz. Of course Newton's ideas were so cutting edge that many smart people of that time couldn't figure him out. When the Principia Mathematica came to print in 1686 many of the leading scholars couldn't understand what the whole point of calculus. I'm sure most high school students can sympathize. Many questioned Newton about the practicality of a book of abtract formulas and equations that didn't seem to have much to do with anything to do with "the real world".
The English also felt that Newton’s theories left no room for divine intervention as his laws proposed that the universe ran in a strict clockwork-like operation. In some cases, he was even accused of advocating for deism or, worse yet, atheism.
Newton addressed many of the criticisms from his critics when he published the second edition of the Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1713."
- From http://www.gohistorygo.com/#!isaac-newton/c1yfd
(Bold emphasis my own.)
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
