(March 21, 2017 at 2:55 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote:(March 21, 2017 at 4:03 am)Stimbo Wrote: In what sense is the article peer reviewed? By which I mean how could anyone possibly verify the contents, methodology and conclusions?
It was published in The Journal of Philosophy*. I don't quite know how philosophy journals verify conclusions, but I think they would just likely check for fallacies and errors in reasoning of some sort.
*http://www.jstor.org/stable/2027068?seq=1#
So basically not at all. This is the kind of cargo cult bsstardisation of the scientific method that allows the more strident xtians to claim that WLC is a peer-reviewed expert, when the mundane reality is that his peers did little more than check his spelling.
Genuine peer review involves tearing the article apart to find errors in methodology and conclusions, replicating the experiments, procedures and results to destruction, until whatever remains actually supports the claims of the paper.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
