"There were eye-witnesses"

[Zzyzx]

.
Some bible stories are claimed to be truthful "because there were eye-witnesses". Does that establish the truth of the story?

If a person claims to have run a mile in two minutes and says "there were eye-witnesses" does that establish the claim as legitimate – if the witnesses cannot be identified – if no statements from witnesses are available – if credibility of the witnesses is unknown?

If there actually was a witness report of the water-to-wine incident, is there any assurance that what they saw was not an illusion (keeping in mind that illusionists even today can perform "magical" feats that convince many observers)?

If the claim defies what we know of the real world, does witness testimony (or claim "there were witnesses") override real world considerations? Is a two-minute-mile any less believable than "arose from the dead" or "walked on water" or "calmed storms by command?"

[Danmark]

.

I may be wrong in thinking I detect some sarcasm about scholarly journals as against mere magazines.

The only "sarcasm" (actually disagreement) was with a claim you made that "Back then [1970] articles never got reviewed, just books." I know from personal experience that is not true.

I don't doubt that you know that, even though I don't remember it happening. (Perhaps you mean what did routinely occur, that in writing one's new article one happened to state at length one's opinion of someone else's article--along with similar critique of other writers and their articles.) However, your bald statement might leave some naive readers with the impression that you mean that this often occurred back in 1970, not just the rare cases you probably mean of an review focusing on one other article, and even those probably in some different type of publication.

If I had published an article there I'm not sure that I would announce that.

Well, Zzyzx,
I thought that was what I said. Unfortunately for me, I was quite correct that bloggers are only interested in tearing opponents apart, not in listening to them and perhaps even learning something. I suppose some people come to websites to learn, but I find very few people who POST on websites have any interest in truth.

Certainly long before 1970, even before the 20th Century, scholarly articles as well as books were reviewed by peers. This process is not some 'internet generation' innovation. It has been going on as long as academia has existed.

The only difference now is the speed with which it occurs and the breadth of the dissemination of new information.

[Zzyzx]

.

However, your bald statement might leave some naive readers with the impression that you mean that this often occurred back in 1970, not just the rare cases you probably mean of an review focusing on one other article, and even those probably in some different type of publication.

I decidedly do NOT mean that it was "rare cases" that articles were peer reviewed long before 1970 – but that it WAS standard practice for scholarly journals for generations before that.

Unfortunately for me, I was quite correct that bloggers are only interested in tearing opponents apart, not in listening to them and perhaps even learning something. I suppose some people come to websites to learn, but I find very few people who POST on websites have any interest in truth.

I, personally, learn many things from websites every day, quite a bit in relation to debates here. In the ongoing flood debate, for instance, I had to redo my calculations of water volumes, verify Earth surface area and continental mass, mountain elevations and rate of change, etc.

I also regularly learn (or relearn) what bible stories contain – and some things about competing "gods" and religions. Today I learned a bit about "Mankind Quarterly." Once in a while a religionist presents an argument that I had not encountered or offers a fresh way of thinking about things.

More important, however, I trust that readers of our threads, whether or not they post, consider the ideas, information and attitudes we convey. This thread alone, young as it is (seven days), has almost 900 views. I am FAR more concerned about readers than about opponents. Those actively debating are usually locked-in to certain thought patterns or ideologies whereas readers may well be seeking information and making decisions. I trust them to be able to understand and evaluate what is presented.

[Goat]

.

I may be wrong in thinking I detect some sarcasm about scholarly journals as against mere magazines.

The only "sarcasm" (actually disagreement) was with a claim you made that "Back then [1970] articles never got reviewed, just books." I know from personal experience that is not true.

I don't doubt that you know that, even though I don't remember it happening. (Perhaps you mean what did routinely occur, that in writing one's new article one happened to state at length one's opinion of someone else's article--along with similar critique of other writers and their articles.) However, your bald statement might leave some naive readers with the impression that you mean that this often occurred back in 1970, not just the rare cases you probably mean of an review focusing on one other article, and even those probably in some different type of publication.

If I had published an article there I'm not sure that I would announce that.

Well, Zzyzx,
I thought that was what I said. Unfortunately for me, I was quite correct that bloggers are only interested in tearing opponents apart, not in listening to them and perhaps even learning something. I suppose some people come to websites to learn, but I find very few people who POST on websites have any interest in truth.

Certainly long before 1970, even before the 20th Century, scholarly articles as well as books were reviewed by peers. This process is not some 'internet generation' innovation. It has been going on as long as academia has existed.

The only difference now is the speed with which it occurs and the breadth of the dissemination of new information.

I find the term 'peer reviewed' to be somewhat misleading in cases. Often, you have to look at WHO is doing the reviewing. For example, dating articles in magazines that have to do with optics is certainly a red flag (such as Raymond Rogers who tried to 'redate' the shroud did'. Then the 'publications' from the discovery institution and the Institute of Creation Research are quite non-scientific, enough though they are 'peer reviewed'.

You have to look at the reputation of the journal too.

[Korah]

routinely [Replying to Zzyzx]
Here's what I actually wrote back in my #34:

Back then articles never got reviewed, just books. I have lately seen cases where substantial articles have been reviewed in other publications, but "peer review" still in no way means that other scholars subsequently wrote about someone's article.

danmark's continued misunderstanding in asking for URL's is now compounded by your misunderstanding of what peer review means, even though you yourself documented its nature. Peer review means checking a book or article before publication. not that a formal review is published later. Now I doubt your claim that such later reviews of articles did routinely occur in 1970. I can no longer take you at your word. This may be the last time I bother replying to you.

[Goat]

routinely [Replying to Zzyzx]
Here's what I actually wrote back in my #34:

Back then articles never got reviewed, just books. I have lately seen cases where substantial articles have been reviewed in other publications, but "peer review" still in no way means that other scholars subsequently wrote about someone's article.

danmark's continued misunderstanding in asking for URL's is now compounded by your misunderstanding of what peer review means, even though you yourself documented its nature. Peer review means checking a book or article before publication. not that a formal review is published later. Now I doubt your claim that such later reviews of articles did routinely occur in 1970. I can no longer take you at your word. This may be the last time I bother replying to you.

That is the START of peer review, at least when it comes to SCIENCE. There is the first part, where the publishers see if the paper is of high enough quality to publish. The second part is have people look at the paper, and examine it for accuracy and flaws. It's an on going process. Yes, the various publications do a review to see if the paper is worth publishing.. some publications are better than others, and some have agendas to push. But, getting a paper published does not stop the process, because in science at least, you need replication , and also examination of the data, to see if it the methods of collecting the data are reasonable, and the conclusions are valid.

Plus, you have to look at the reputation, and agenda of the journal. Some journals have criticisms against htem that make them unusable as a good source.

For example, Let's look at the 'Mankind Quarterly Journal' for example. It's 'peer reviewed', but the criticisms of it is that it is highly right leaning politically, and racist. From Wiki

Many of those who constitute the publication's contributors, Board of Directors, and publishers are connected to the academic hereditarian tradition. The journal has been criticized by some as being political and strongly right-leaning,[7] racist or fascist.[8][9]The publisher counters that much of Anthropology is 'politicised' in the opposite way and that those who count amongst the most vocal critics of the journal often identify with the Radical tradition in Anthropology.[10] The editorial practice has been criticised as biased and misleading.[11]

During the "Bell Curve wars" of the 1990s, the journal received attention when opponents of The Bell Curve publicized the fact that some of the works cited by Bell Curve authors Herrnstein and Murray had first been published in Mankind Quarterly.[12] In the New York Review of Books, Charles Lane referred to The Bell Curve's "tainted sources," noting that seventeen researchers cited in the book's bibliography had contributed articles to, and ten of these seventeen had also been editors of, Mankind Quarterly, "a notorious journal of 'racial history' founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race."[13] The journal stands by its tradition of publishing hereditarian perspective articles to this day, stating that "...this science has stood the test of time, and MQ is still prepared to publish controversial findings and theories".[14] Pearson received over a million dollars in grants from the Pioneer Fund in the eighties and the nine

NOw, let's look at the reputation of the pioneer fund... also from Wiki

he Pioneer Fund is an American non-profit foundation established in 1937 "to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences."

From 2002 until his death in October 2012, the fund was headed by psychology professor J. Philippe Rushton. The fund states that it focuses on projects it perceives will not be easily funded due to controversial subject matter. The organization has been criticized by some other scholars as racist and "white supremacist" in nature,[1][2][3] or as a "hate group".[4] As of October 2013, Richard Lynn is the primary contact for the Pionner Fund.[5]

Now, that makes me suspect that the articles in mandkind quarterly are very biased and highly suspect.

[Zzyzx]

Now I doubt your claim that such later reviews of articles did routinely occur in 1970.

Notice that I said nothing about "later reviews." That is your recent addition to what was a discussion of "peer review" that doesn't seem to be going very well for you and may need diversionary tactics.

I can no longer take you at your word.

I could not care less what you might think. Instead, my credibility with readers is what is important. They can decide.

This may be the last time I bother replying to you.

I can understand that a person would refuse to reply to challenges that are difficult for them to handle. Whether or not you reply to my posts, I will continue to challenge statements and claims. Respond or not -- makes no difference to me.


Now, where were we in discussion of "There were eye-witnesses?"

[Danmark]

routinely [Replying to Zzyzx]
Here's what I actually wrote back in my #34:

Back then articles never got reviewed, just books. I have lately seen cases where substantial articles have been reviewed in other publications, but "peer review" still in no way means that other scholars subsequently wrote about someone's article.

danmark's continued misunderstanding in asking for URL's is now compounded by your misunderstanding of what peer review means, even though you yourself documented its nature. Peer review means checking a book or article before publication. not that a formal review is published later. Now I doubt your claim that such later reviews of articles did routinely occur in 1970. I can no longer take you at your word. This may be the last time I bother replying to you.

I guess you get misunderstood a lot.
Do you disagree with this definition of Peer Review?

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.
_ Wikipedia

[Danmark]

Now I doubt your claim that such later reviews of articles did routinely occur in 1970.

Notice that I said nothing about "later reviews." That is your recent addition to what was a discussion of "peer review" that doesn't seem to be going very well for you and may need diversionary tactics.

I can no longer take you at your word.

I could not care less what you might think. Instead, my credibility with readers is what is important. They can decide.

This may be the last time I bother replying to you.

I can understand that a person would refuse to reply to challenges that are difficult for them to handle. Whether or not you reply to my posts, I will continue to challenge statements and claims. Respond or not -- makes no difference to me.


Now, where were we in discussion of "There were eye-witnesses?"

Yes please. I'm interested in seeing evidence and documentation.
I'd also like more information on why you think we half Nordics are superior. I mean other than the obvious.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 47 by Danmark]
Yes, danmark,
I agree with that definition of peer review. Notice the "[be]for[e] publication" part.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 47 by Danmark]
Yes, danmark,
I agree with that definition of peer review. Notice the "before publication" part.