(March 22, 2017 at 5:47 am)Stimbo Wrote:(March 21, 2017 at 2:55 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote: 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.
^Exactly this. 'Peer review' is an utterly meaningless concept when it comes to theology. Quite simply, there are no facts to check.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
