What is peer review?

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So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed?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

[Bust Nak]

I made that clear, I said we "already believed" there were overlaps, that is had some reasonable reason to expect overlaps.

Well, scientifically minded people would go by what the pieces shows. If anyone expects there to be overlaps, it would be those who would appeal to factors such as "I have a note from the puzzle maker that says there are overlaps."

Exactly, just as in my example, the artificially constructed jigsaw with missing pieces filled in with some presumed piece, would be wrong, the "theory" would be wrong.

Ah huh, but the ones who are factually wrong, would still be the reasonable ones though wouldn't they? All their pieces have have are solid color so they conclude that there are only solid color pieces. They were rational to say that they have evidence that the whole puzzle consist only of solid color pieces. They were rational to say the theory is getting stronger and stronger more solid color pieces are discovered.

The ones who interpret the pieces as evidence of multiple colors per piece are the ones acting irrationally, despite being ultimately correct.

If you had to pick between the two, which would you prefer, being rational but incorrect, or being irrational but factually correct?

I'd pick being rational, because as I said before, being incorrect isn't so scary to me. Luckily for me, being rational tend to go hand in hand with being correct.

[JoeyKnothead]

You see what you want to see. If there's something you don't really want to see, then you simply won't see it.

I see you can't refute my argument on how we can reasonably and logically deduce common descent, if the only observation we make is regarding our differing genes among our parental lines.

Notice here the subtle ad hom - that I don't wanna see arguments counter to my own.

I can't see an argument you don't present.

[Sherlock Holmes]

You see what you want to see. If there's something you don't really want to see, then you simply won't see it.

I see you can't refute my argument on how we can reasonably and logically deduce common descent, if the only observation we make is regarding our differing genes among our parental lines.

Notice here the subtle ad hom - that I don't wanna see arguments counter to my own.

I can't see an argument you don't present.

Why do you mistakenly believe I did not refute it?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #170]

With all due respect I must refer you to post #130.

[JoeyKnothead]

I see you can't refute my argument on how we can reasonably and logically deduce common descent, if the only observation we make is regarding our differing genes among our parental lines.

Notice here the subtle ad hom - that I don't wanna see arguments counter to my own.

I can't see an argument you don't present.

Why do you mistakenly believe I did not refute it?

Cause whether a number is, or ain't it a prime number doesn't fret evolutionary theory one bit.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I see you can't refute my argument on how we can reasonably and logically deduce common descent, if the only observation we make is regarding our differing genes among our parental lines.

Notice here the subtle ad hom - that I don't wanna see arguments counter to my own.

I can't see an argument you don't present.

Why do you mistakenly believe I did not refute it?

Cause whether a number is, or ain't it a prime number doesn't fret evolutionary theory one bit.

No I agree, but it does reveal the logical reasoning error in your claims about what can be "deduced" from the fact that children inherit genes from their parents.

In terms of symbolic logic:

B => A cannot be deduced from A => B.

I was pointing out the error in your logic I.e. refuting you), nothing to do with evolution.

[Bust Nak]

I was pointing out the error in your logic, nothing to do with evolution.

Well, your error is treating an indictive argument as if it was a deductive one. We are talking about evidence here, not logical proofs.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I was pointing out the error in your logic, nothing to do with evolution.

Well, your error is treating an indictive argument as if it was a deductive one. We are talking about evidence here, not logical proofs.

Precisley, yet Joey wrote:

I see you can't refute my argument on how we can reasonably and logically deduce common descent

Unless you start with what Joey said you might miss the gist of my interaction with him.

See Joey? even Bust Nak agrees, one cannot deduce in this case, now do you see my point? does my refutation now make sense?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #178]

You have a point, Joey?

[Jose Fly]

<deleted>