What is peer review?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Sherlock Holmes

What is peer review?

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

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So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed?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?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: What is peer review?

Post #211

Post by The Barbarian »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 12:09 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 10:14 am Yes. He started calling me "the lupine one." So I began to refer to him as "the musteline one." Which was fine until he looked it up. O:)
Mustelids're cool. I reread my Grzimeks a lot, and passed by that section again back in January.

Smart, inquisitive, brave. I love em!
Yeah, it was kind of a slur against mustelids to equate them with "Socrates."

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: What is peer review?

Post #212

Post by Purple Knight »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:12 pmThe emphasis some place on peer review soon causes problems for them when they're shown that there is peer review but not to their liking.

I showed a publication that performs peer review, but because it was a creationist oriented publication, some people started to nit pick that it wasn't a "real" peer review and so on.

Its quite ridiculous.

The position they adopt is basically "peer review is when the people doing the review share my belief system otherwise its not a true peer review", if they'd just admit this these discussions would proceed more rapidly.
The ridiculous part is realising that a creationist publication is probably bloody biased because everyone doing the review shares the same ideology, but not applying that same doubt of the process when errors of those types, in peer review, have been shown to crop up naturally in academia and for the same basic reason.

In other words, they absolutely should doubt that a creationist source will be unbiased. It's incredibly likely that the deck of peers is stacked with creationists who want to confirm their beliefs. An ideal deck would consist of some of each.

They should also apply this doubt when it has been shown that the deck of peers is stacked with ideologically motivated individuals who possess (exactly like the people I'm talking about whose critical thinking and doubt simply stop where they agree) intellectual blind spots.

Confirmation bias is a thing. So I'm not even accusing anyone of deliberate wrongdoing.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: What is peer review?

Post #213

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Purple Knight wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 10:34 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:12 pmThe emphasis some place on peer review soon causes problems for them when they're shown that there is peer review but not to their liking.

I showed a publication that performs peer review, but because it was a creationist oriented publication, some people started to nit pick that it wasn't a "real" peer review and so on.

Its quite ridiculous.

The position they adopt is basically "peer review is when the people doing the review share my belief system otherwise its not a true peer review", if they'd just admit this these discussions would proceed more rapidly.
The ridiculous part is realising that a creationist publication is probably bloody biased because everyone doing the review shares the same ideology, but not applying that same doubt of the process when errors of those types, in peer review, have been shown to crop up naturally in academia and for the same basic reason.

In other words, they absolutely should doubt that a creationist source will be unbiased. It's incredibly likely that the deck of peers is stacked with creationists who want to confirm their beliefs. An ideal deck would consist of some of each.

They should also apply this doubt when it has been shown that the deck of peers is stacked with ideologically motivated individuals who possess (exactly like the people I'm talking about whose critical thinking and doubt simply stop where they agree) intellectual blind spots.

Confirmation bias is a thing. So I'm not even accusing anyone of deliberate wrongdoing.
This is fascinating.

So peer review cannot work well when one's peers share one's beliefs, very well then in that case papers advocating evolution should be peer reviewed by creationists and papers advocating creation should be peer reviewed by evolutionists - is that what you are trying to say? I'm referring to qualified scientifically educated people, doctorates and so on in the relevant subjects.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: What is peer review?

Post #214

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 11:28 am ...
So peer review cannot work well when one's peers share one's beliefs, very well then in that case papers advocating evolution should be peer reviewed by creationists and papers advocating creation should be peer reviewed by evolutionists - is that what you are trying to say? I'm referring to qualified scientifically educated people, doctorates and so on in the relevant subjects.
We gotta understand here the relevant qualifications when the experts set in to fuss about stuff, and what it is they're afussing on. But also the limitations of gooficity.

Where the creationist claims a god they can't show exists did him a thing they can't show he did, does it matter if the creationist's a PhD in even the relevant field?

Science's set to deal with facts - and logical conclusions about em. In peer review then, we look to the conclusions of the reviewer of peers, and think on it.

When the peer reviewer says such as, "Naw, that can't be, cause a God I can't show exists'd never do him a thing I can show he won't," well that's as goofy as me telling the pretty thing I took me out that pile of trash, that she's sitting there apointing at.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Sherlock Holmes

Re: What is peer review?

Post #215

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 1:51 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 11:28 am ...
So peer review cannot work well when one's peers share one's beliefs, very well then in that case papers advocating evolution should be peer reviewed by creationists and papers advocating creation should be peer reviewed by evolutionists - is that what you are trying to say? I'm referring to qualified scientifically educated people, doctorates and so on in the relevant subjects.
We gotta understand here the relevant qualifications when the experts set in to fuss about stuff, and what it is they're afussing on. But also the limitations of gooficity.

Where the creationist claims a god they can't show exists did him a thing they can't show he did, does it matter if the creationist's a PhD in even the relevant field?

Science's set to deal with facts - and logical conclusions about em. In peer review then, we look to the conclusions of the reviewer of peers, and think on it.

When the peer reviewer says such as, "Naw, that can't be, cause a God I can't show exists'd never do him a thing I can show he won't," well that's as goofy as me telling the pretty thing I took me out that pile of trash, that she's sitting there apointing at.
God is shown to exist though, that's why people believe in God, all you can say is that God is not shown to you to exist. I see clear evidence of God, that you cannot recognize stuff as evidence is something you need to think about, this is not about God, its about you, how you think, what you choose to believe, what you choose to not believe, you are a part of it all, your desires, wishes, wants all play into this, its not really "about" science at all.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: What is peer review?

Post #216

Post by Purple Knight »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 11:28 amThis is fascinating.

So peer review cannot work well when one's peers share one's beliefs, very well then in that case papers advocating evolution should be peer reviewed by creationists and papers advocating creation should be peer reviewed by evolutionists - is that what you are trying to say? I'm referring to qualified scientifically educated people, doctorates and so on in the relevant subjects.
For best results, a group of peer reviewers can't all want to confirm the finding.

If I were the Lord of Science (which, let's be honest, I ought to be) I would put people who didn't even believe in evolution on these committees, yes. If there is a hole they are the ones who are going to find that hole.

I would also look for qualified scientifically educated people of all ideologies to put on committees reviewing the latest finding in sociology, even the nasty ideologies, because it turns out not having them there is a problem. It turns out that if everyone shares beliefs, even if they're the right beliefs, science doesn't get done.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: What is peer review?

Post #217

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Purple Knight wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:09 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 11:28 amThis is fascinating.

So peer review cannot work well when one's peers share one's beliefs, very well then in that case papers advocating evolution should be peer reviewed by creationists and papers advocating creation should be peer reviewed by evolutionists - is that what you are trying to say? I'm referring to qualified scientifically educated people, doctorates and so on in the relevant subjects.
For best results, a group of peer reviewers can't all want to confirm the finding.
I agree, they should all want to be honest and nothing more.
Purple Knight wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:09 pm If I were the Lord of Science (which, let's be honest, I ought to be) I would put people who didn't even believe in evolution on these committees, yes. If there is a hole they are the ones who are going to find that hole.
I see.
Purple Knight wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:09 pm I would also look for qualified scientifically educated people of all ideologies to put on committees reviewing the latest finding in sociology, even the nasty ideologies, because it turns out not having them there is a problem. It turns out that if everyone shares beliefs, even if they're the right beliefs, science doesn't get done.
I agree, science is not some formal stuffy dreary enterprise reserved only for the official men in white coats. There are too many self important people like Dawkins running around telling us what we "should" believe.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: What is peer review?

Post #218

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:30 pm I agree, science is not some formal stuffy dreary enterprise reserved only for the official men in white coats. There are too many self important people like Dawkins running around telling us what we "should" believe.
"Either y'all believe in me, or I'm here to tell it, y'all'll suffer ya'all all such sufferings it is, y'all can't even fathom how much y'all'll be suffering y'all all the sufferings it it is, all y'all'll hafta suffer."

With science, the not believing just means there ya sit, with that goofy red hat.

With religion, the not believing has ya getting barbecued.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Sherlock Holmes

Re: What is peer review?

Post #219

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 4:39 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:30 pm I agree, science is not some formal stuffy dreary enterprise reserved only for the official men in white coats. There are too many self important people like Dawkins running around telling us what we "should" believe.
"Either y'all believe in me, or I'm here to tell it, y'all'll suffer ya'all all such sufferings it is, y'all can't even fathom how much y'all'll be suffering y'all all the sufferings it it is, all y'all'll hafta suffer."

With science, the not believing just means there ya sit, with that goofy red hat.

With religion, the not believing has ya getting barbecued.
This might come as a shock to you but there are sound compelling biblical arguments for universal salvation. That is every single person will be saved and receive eternal life and there is no literal "burning" in hell. Much of that claptrap arose in mediaeval times and this just goes to show how so many people have a view of the Bible that is not based on what it says but based on what people claim it says, based on centuries of religious dogma. Few people can read a Bible without already holding a huge amount of preconceived baggage influencing jhow they perceive what they read.

So I for one have no belief people are to be endlessly tortured, that is pure medieval mythology and just underlines how little of this subject you understand.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: What is peer review?

Post #220

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 5:01 pm This might come as a shock to you but there are sound compelling biblical arguments for universal salvation
You can't even show the god in question exists to do him some salvating.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: That is every single person will be saved and receive eternal life and there is no literal "burning" in hell. Much of that claptrap arose in mediaeval times and this just goes to show how so many people have a view of the Bible that is not based on what it says but based on what people claim it says, based on centuries of religious dogma. Few people can read a Bible without already holding a huge amount of preconceived baggage influencing jhow they perceive what they read.
Do be kind and try to put some truth to that bit of preaching.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: So I for one have no belief people are to be endlessly tortured, that is pure medieval mythology and just underlines how little of this subject you understand.
Please note, I grew me up an atheist in the Bible Belt, I've heard me plenty a time I'm gonna burn in Hell.

But yeah, now we gotta ponder on what it is folks oughta be expecting the salvating from.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply