Often when debating atheism or questioning the evolution doctrine, the supporters of evolution will reject arguments against it made by scientists because they insist that only "peer reviewed" publications are to be trusted (else it must be pseudo science).
So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed? what definition do people use to help them make this decision?
What is peer review?
Moderator: Moderators
- oldbadger
- Guru
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
- Has thanked: 321 times
- Been thanked: 238 times
Re: What is peer review?
Post #241Brilliant question....Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:52 pm Often when debating atheism or questioning the evolution doctrine, the supporters of evolution will reject arguments against it made by scientists because they insist that only "peer reviewed" publications are to be trusted (else it must be pseudo science).
So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed? what definition do people use to help them make this decision?
Actually the demand for 'peer-reviewed' scientist and scholar sources is common to most any kind of debate from mostly any point of view.
It seems to me that students and under-graduates can get filled to the brim with the opinions of their lecturers and professors, and as long as they vomit back the same stuff which they ingested then they're very likely to be academically successful.
Moving onwards and upwards, once these fledged academics reach higher levels they can be 'peer-reviewed' by other academics who have liked their method and findings. In the arena of Historical Jesus (for example) we can see Scholar followers of Christianity, Scholar followers of Jesus the 'magic-for-meal' peasant and Scholars of 'It's all mythological' ........... they're all 'peer-reviewed' scholars but if you put all these folks in a locked room with feather pillars it would soon look like a snowstorm.
Ergo... These 'Peer-reviewed' demands remind me of our Court's 'expert-witnesses', where a prosecution or plaintiff can produce theirs to 'prove' their case while the defendants can choose theirs to rebut all claims..... don't you love it? Several years ago a journalist offered a handwriting expert witness a dollop of money to find that a document written by him was not written by him, and guess what? ....The expert concluded that some unknown person had written it! Oh! And that expert had once trained the Metropolitan police in that subject. You couldn't make it up, but that expert did.
It does not matter what your belief or opinion is, is anybody challenges you to provide a 'peer-reviewed' expert's opinion then you must ask that person 'If I can show that a peer-reviewed scholar agrees with this, will you give in?' ...... Answer? Never! Result? Laugh your socks off at 'em.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3047
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3277 times
- Been thanked: 2023 times
Re: What is peer review?
Post #242So, experts have been wrong before, therefore even the most ill-informed and ill-reasoned apologetic argument is just as good as an expert opinion?oldbadger wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 2:32 amIt does not matter what your belief or opinion is, is anybody challenges you to provide a 'peer-reviewed' expert's opinion then you must ask that person 'If I can show that a peer-reviewed scholar agrees with this, will you give in?' ...... Answer? Never! Result? Laugh your socks off at 'em.
Is that about it? Did I miss some subtle nuance there?
Perhaps this is related and perhaps not, but do you know what a "slippery slope" argument is? It seems to me that Christian apologists are overfond of slippery slope arguments. Can you think of any reasons why that might be? Or am I just imagining things, instead?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- oldbadger
- Guru
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
- Has thanked: 321 times
- Been thanked: 238 times
Re: What is peer review?
Post #243Wrong! Ill-informed and ill-reasoned arguments fail, and not because other debaters have high qualifications but because they (hopefully) are holding more accurate information.
It's not the status of a debater that should prove a point.......... but the point.
It might have been unclear to you, so let me suggest that it is the content of a proposal or argument that must stand or fall, and not the person delivering.Is that about it? Did I miss some subtle nuance there?
Tell us what you believe and I have no doubt that we could dig up a few peer-reviewed scholars who totally contest your position.
True? Is that true?
In which case, stop worrying about the status of any opponent and make your case, I suggest.
The fact that you need to lean on rhetoric like the above, and to pick on apologists in particular, this causes me to wonder if you might have a slight prejudice against apologists?Perhaps this is related and perhaps not, but do you know what a "slippery slope" argument is? It seems to me that Christian apologists are overfond of slippery slope arguments. Can you think of any reasons why that might be? Or am I just imagining things, instead?
I find some devout Christians to be brilliant debaters whilst some 'all myth' debaters are very weak....... I just look at the claims etc.
This might help you to get my point. 50 years ago I joined a chess club. I was very poor at chess and did not often get a seat in competitions. So one day a chess master who was not playing offered to play a game with me. He beat me. And again. And again. As we prepared for another game I apologised for the boring time that he must be having. He then taught me a lesson for life:-
'Not so!', he answered, 'It doesn't matter whom I am playing with, I play what's on the board. I failed in the last games, I lost lives, I would seek to win a battle and save all my lives.'
Wow! Brilliant minds can be so humble.
So my suggestion is:- stop worrying about ad-hominem and argument-by-status folks........ just tell your side of it.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: What is peer review?
Post #244In the scientific field or agreed upon by most field leaders (mainstream), things function in a way that outsiders cannot change, and the opinions of others are not relevant at all... the human system of things has its global controllers. In any case, it is interesting to know how it is decided if some discovery, theory, etc. can be considered valid with the imprimatur of these "judges of science".
My question is: if the belief in a Creator God is only a religious matter and not worthy of even being considered by this "court" of peer-reviewers, what if the same thing is talked about but changing the way of approaching the matter? Let's say instead of saying that God created man, we say that a race of extraterrestrial beings did such a thing... how worthy of being accepted for review can it be then?
My question is: if the belief in a Creator God is only a religious matter and not worthy of even being considered by this "court" of peer-reviewers, what if the same thing is talked about but changing the way of approaching the matter? Let's say instead of saying that God created man, we say that a race of extraterrestrial beings did such a thing... how worthy of being accepted for review can it be then?
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: What is peer review?
Post #245I am fond of mathematics. I worked for a long time on an algorithm to determine if a large number is a multiple of a large prime... Sure, there are many algorithms which do that already out there, but the one I created was novel in several respects. One day I posted it on a site dedicated to algorithms and stuff... A forum participant questioned the value of the algorithm I had created; what he told me was: how can your algorithm be better than the ones we already have?
I think that this elitist attitude and behavior is simply a hindrance to the development of human knowledge. The truth is that thousands of scientific discoveries throughout all time have been made by people who are not part of any world elite.
I think that this elitist attitude and behavior is simply a hindrance to the development of human knowledge. The truth is that thousands of scientific discoveries throughout all time have been made by people who are not part of any world elite.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: What is peer review?
Post #246Sure they can. It would be difficult and they'd have to bring something significant to the table, but that's the way it should be. Otherwise you'd have science constantly changing its methods, which would render it largely ineffective.
Yes they are. In my line of work we regularly seek input from "others". And anyone who spots an error or other problem with an article in a journal can submit a letter or counter-article outlining their case.and the opinions of others are not relevant at all
Huh? I've worked in science for over 25 years and I've never seen, heard from, or had my work affected by a "global controller", nor has anyone I've ever worked with.the human system of things has its global controllers.
How do you think the process works? What direct experience do you have with it?In any case, it is interesting to know how it is decided if some discovery, theory, etc. can be considered valid with the imprimatur of these "judges of science".
Where did you get the idea that it's been declared that belief in gods isn't "worthy of even being considered"? I ask because my understanding is quite different. Gods, being supernatural by definition, are not testable which places them outside the realm of science's ability to investigate. That's rather different than "belief in gods isn't worthy of being considered".My question is: if the belief in a Creator God is only a religious matter and not worthy of even being considered by this "court" of peer-reviewers
Oh, well if you're looking for a scientific evaluation of human/primate common ancestry vs. humans being separate and unique (by whatever means), that's been done already.what if the same thing is talked about but changing the way of approaching the matter? Let's say instead of saying that God created man, we say that a race of extraterrestrial beings did such a thing... how worthy of being accepted for review can it be then?
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/036327v1.full
While there is no doubt among evolutionary biologists that all living species, or merely all living species within a particular group (e.g., animals), share descent from a common ancestor, formal statistical methods for evaluating common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data have received criticism. One primary criticism is that prior methods take sequence similarity as evidence for common ancestry while ignoring other potential biological causes of similarity, such as functional constraints. We present a new statistical framework to test separate ancestry versus common ancestry that avoids this pitfall. We illustrate the efficacy of our approach using a recently published large molecular alignment to examine common ancestry of all primates (including humans).
We find overwhelming evidence against separate ancestry and in favor of common ancestry for orders and families of primates. We also find overwhelming evidence that humans share a common ancestor with other primate species.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: What is peer review?
Post #247Well, when I read things like these:
What make you believe that "Creationists can't meet those [scientific] standards"?
I can not believe what you say now. I guess you are not very clear on the matter.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:00 pm Lots of publications are peer-reviewed, but not all of them are peer-reviewed scientific publications. In order to be a scientific publication you have to adhere to scientific standards. Creationists can't meet those standards so they start their own publications where things like invoking miracles from the gods and automatically rejecting anything that disagrees with the Bible are allowed.
If creationists could meet the standards of scientific journals, they would. They can't, so they go off and start their own. The good thing is, no one really pays attention to creationist publications. They're about as relevant to real world science as flat-earthers' publications.
What make you believe that "Creationists can't meet those [scientific] standards"?
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: What is peer review?
Post #248Why not?
How so?I guess you are not very clear on the matter.
Because they invoke supernatural causes and miracles to explain things, which violates one of the fundamental standards of science, namely that explanations must be testable. Do you know of a means by which gods can be scientifically tested?What make you believe that "Creationists can't meet those [scientific] standards"?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: What is peer review?
Post #249Do they "invoke supernatural causes and miracles to explain things"? Or is it just a prejudice that some of you have?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 1:50 pmWhy not?
How so?I guess you are not very clear on the matter.
Because they invoke supernatural causes and miracles to explain things, which violates one of the fundamental standards of science, namely that explanations must be testable. Do you know of a means by which gods can be scientifically tested?What make you believe that "Creationists can't meet those [scientific] standards"?
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: What is peer review?
Post #250Yes, they do. Would you like to see an example? Also, can I assume you're just going to ignore the questions I asked?Eloi wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 1:54 pmDo they "invoke supernatural causes and miracles to explain things"? Or is it just a prejudice that some of you have?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 1:50 pmWhy not?
How so?I guess you are not very clear on the matter.
Because they invoke supernatural causes and miracles to explain things, which violates one of the fundamental standards of science, namely that explanations must be testable. Do you know of a means by which gods can be scientifically tested?What make you believe that "Creationists can't meet those [scientific] standards"?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.