(January 3, 2017 at 6:40 pm)AAA Wrote: I agree that they don't need to treat all ideas the same. But if you are aware that they don't, then you can't demand that I publish ideas in a scientific journal before you will consider them.I'm aware that they don't treat all ideas the same because some ideas don't deserve to be taken seriously. If you feel they do, then the way to demonstrate it is via peer-review in a scientific journal. If you're avoiding legitimate peer-review, I will remain suspicious of your ideas.
Quote:I'm confused by your second question. I do think that different topics lead to differential journal subscription rates, which leads to different profit.You feel that if ID gets attention in scientific journals, they will lose enough subscriber revenue to refuse to consider papers for publication?
Quote:And I agree that it is a way to keep scientists honest. They are not avoiding the system. They have published several articles, and peer-reviewed books as well.And these haven't rocked the foundations of biology?
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
