Jump to content

Peer Review Is A Joke


Recommended Posts

Guest Codebreaker
Posted

Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been

successful. And who would not ask?

This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest kingdoodlesquat
Posted

> Peer Review is a joke

>

 

if a peer review is such a joke, there would be no need to prove anything at

all. Ergo, you could publish any old bullshit & claim it's true, like the

bible, the qur'an, & so on. Buffoon.

Guest Codebreaker
Posted

On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

 

 

Peer Review:

evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in

the SAME occupation, profession, or industry.

 

The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation

 

 

Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been

successful. And who would not ask?

This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke

Guest Matt Silberstein
Posted

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:34:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Codebreaker

<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in

<1181608442.824744.115560@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote:

>

>Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been

>successful. And who would not ask?

>This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke

 

Books are not peer reviewed. There are other problems with your ideas,

but getting the basics right would help.

 

 

--

Matt Silberstein

 

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

 

http://www.beawitness.org

http://www.darfurgenocide.org

http://www.savedarfur.org

 

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Guest Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com
Posted

On Jun 11, 8:52 pm, "kingdoodlesquat"

<neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:

> > Peer Review is a joke

>

> if a peer review is such a joke, there would be no need to prove anything at

> all. Ergo, you could publish any old bullshit & claim it's true, like the

> bible, the qur'an, & so on. Buffoon.

 

Pove that the indoctrination works? Hmmmmmm

This is easy to prove

Guest kingdoodlesquat
Posted

>

> Peer Review:

> evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in

> the SAME occupation, profession, or industry.

>

> The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation

>

 

so if you were tried in a court of law by a jury of your peers (& hence be

peer reviewed), would they all have to be in the same occupation as you

then? You are a clown sir.

Guest Peter Principle
Posted

Codebreaker wrote:

> Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been

> successful. And who would not ask?

> This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke

 

Uh, you do know the Bible is a peer reviewed work, right, Deep Thinker? WTF

do you think Nicaea was, Deep Thinker?

 

That aside, how did you find the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

 

Were there an old guy with a beard sitting up in the clouds, one can only

imagine how thrilled He'd be every time this incredible idiot refers to

Him...

 

--

Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.

------

Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

 

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Posted

Codebreaker wrote:

> On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

>

>

> Peer Review:

> evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in

> the SAME occupation, profession, or industry.

>

> The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation

 

And who do you THINK should be reviewing and refereeing

works on cellular biology for publication? A physicist?

A priest? Some randomly selected pedestrian?

>

>

> Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been

> successful. And who would not ask?

> This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke

 

No, it's expert review to verify procedures and

conclusions.

Posted

Peer review has historically had no problems with radical new ideas. Einstein's theories went through. Darwin's theories went through. Even the creepiness of quantum physics went through. Basically, if you have a wacky idea and irrefutable proof of said wacky idea then peer review hasn't been much of a problem since Galileo.

 

Peer review pisses people off if they have rather subpar proof of new ideas. Some come back with better proof. Others just go emo and hang out on Usenet too much.

Guest Doc Smartass
Posted

Codebreaker <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in

news:1181608442.824744.115560@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

> Subject: Peer Review Is A Joke

 

All you religious assholes have is a whacked-out opinion, no facts to

back you up, and the arrogant self-satisfaction that comes only from

abject stupidity.

 

Science has been kicking your asses and proving you wrong for millennia,

not just centuries, even when you assholes tried to muffle it or tie its

hands. It breaks the chains, your god gets smaller.

 

SCIENCE: planes, computers, cars, electronics, plastics, medicine

(including fixing shit in your head that you assholes fuck up), air

conditioning, spacecraft, radio, ball-point pens, the Internet, better

education, better understanding of life and ourselves. Fucking

calculators that whip 30-year-old computers. I've got a graphing

calculator that's 10 years old and smarter than you, boy.

 

What have you got?

 

RELIGION: dumbasses, institutionalized child molestation, demonization of

anything that goes against their dumbass opinions, a desperate need to

get involved in shit that doesn't concern them (oh, you're white, you

can'e marry that black person! Oh, you're gay, I'm going to have to kill

you!). Oh, there's one thing you fucks excel at--finding new ways to be

dumbasses despite having all the fucking information you need to educate

yourselves.

 

You're pathetic--you wear your chains willingly, you have the fucking

keys in your pocket, and you have the nerve to whine about the fucking

burden.

 

You're not qualified to discuss science--you shouldn't even be allowed to

partake of its sweet fruit.

 

You got nothing.

 

--

Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling

aa # 1939

 

Help Prevent Projectile Stupidity

Duct-Tape a Fundie's Mouth Shut Today!

Guest Douglas Berry
Posted

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:34:02 -0700 there was an Ancient Codebreaker

<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism

>

>Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been

>successful. And who would not ask?

 

Peer review is applied to article submitted to professiona science

journals. Not books, o ignorant one.

 

Peer review looks not only at the results, but the methods used to

gather and analyze the evidence. It exists to ensure that what is

published has been rigorously tested and confirmed.

>This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke

 

For morons like you, perhaps. You can't confirm your claims, can't

show your methids, so your wild claims remain just that - wild claims.

--

 

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

 

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the

source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a

stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as

good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

Guest ZenIsWhen
Posted

"Peter Principle" <petesfeats@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote in message

news:466df4b9$0$3108$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> Codebreaker wrote:

>> Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been

>> successful. And who would not ask?

>> This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke

>

> Uh, you do know the Bible is a peer reviewed work, right, Deep Thinker?

> WTF

> do you think Nicaea was, Deep Thinker?

 

 

 

It IS????

 

Fairy tales cannot be "peer reviewed", except for entertainment purposes.

Guest Nosterill
Posted

On Jun 12, 1:55 am, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

> On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

>

> Peer Review:

> evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in

> the SAME occupation, profession, or industry.

>

> The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation

 

Oh the horror! The iniquity! Reviewers who understand what they are

reviewing!!!!! The only fair review must be with the perfect

neutrality of ignorance.

Guest Geoff
Posted

ZenIsWhen wrote:

> "Peter Principle" <petesfeats@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:466df4b9$0$3108$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>> Codebreaker wrote:

>>> Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been

>>> successful. And who would not ask?

>>> This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke

>>

>> Uh, you do know the Bible is a peer reviewed work, right, Deep

>> Thinker? WTF

>> do you think Nicaea was, Deep Thinker?

>

>

>

> It IS????

>

> Fairy tales cannot be "peer reviewed", except for entertainment

> purposes.

 

Catholic peer review...like when Mother Teresa was fast-tracked to

canonization on the basis of a cheap parlor trick.

Guest Robibnikoff
Posted

"Doc Smartass" <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message

news:Xns994CE79FA39Faskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18...

> Codebreaker <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in

> news:1181608442.824744.115560@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

>

>> Subject: Peer Review Is A Joke

>

> All you religious assholes have is a whacked-out opinion, no facts to

> back you up, and the arrogant self-satisfaction that comes only from

> abject stupidity.

>

> Science has been kicking your asses and proving you wrong for millennia,

> not just centuries, even when you assholes tried to muffle it or tie its

> hands. It breaks the chains, your god gets smaller.

>

> SCIENCE: planes, computers, cars, electronics, plastics, medicine

> (including fixing shit in your head that you assholes fuck up), air

> conditioning, spacecraft, radio, ball-point pens, the Internet, better

> education, better understanding of life and ourselves. Fucking

> calculators that whip 30-year-old computers. I've got a graphing

> calculator that's 10 years old and smarter than you, boy.

>

> What have you got?

>

> RELIGION: dumbasses, institutionalized child molestation, demonization of

> anything that goes against their dumbass opinions, a desperate need to

> get involved in shit that doesn't concern them (oh, you're white, you

> can'e marry that black person! Oh, you're gay, I'm going to have to kill

> you!). Oh, there's one thing you fucks excel at--finding new ways to be

> dumbasses despite having all the fucking information you need to educate

> yourselves.

>

> You're pathetic--you wear your chains willingly, you have the fucking

> keys in your pocket, and you have the nerve to whine about the fucking

> burden.

>

> You're not qualified to discuss science--you shouldn't even be allowed to

> partake of its sweet fruit.

>

> You got nothing.

 

Oh my. Were you channeling a kinder, gentler Stix?

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

Guest William Wingstedt
Posted

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:34:02 -0700, Codebreaker

<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote:

>

>Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been

>successful. And who would not ask?

>This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke

 

I think you mean "Pier Review." That's where you take your book and

throw it off a pier and see if it floats. If it does, it's a miracle.

>

Posted

Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

> Peer review looks not only at the results, but the

> methods used to gather and analyze the evidence.

> It exists to ensure that what is published has been

> rigorously tested and confirmed.

 

Maybe. But it's really just a filter, and anything but a perfect

one.

 

The famous Spitzer study on ex gays, for example, managed

to get published, one would have to assume largely on the

man's stature. The only alternative is the subject matter alone

warranted such attention. It certainly wasn't because the work

didn't have critical flaws, that's for sure.

 

But it was peer reviewed & published. I'm assuming that this

being usenet, and the Spitzer study having been debated

ad naseum, I don't need to offer any URLs...

 

On the other end of the spectrum we have W.D. Hamilton's

submission to "Science" magazine on the subject of oral

vaccine & the origin of AIDS. One would have to guess that

he was rejected for the very same reasons that Spitzer's

work was accepted. That, the often stated fear of what his

work might do to confidence in public health programs,

particularly in Africa, weighed heavily.

 

I'll give you an example, from peer reviewer #2, third paragraph:

 

| I disagree that all other theories of the origin of HIV are

| equally implausible to the polio vaccine theory. No case

| of oral sexual transmission of HIV is known; but

| thousands of parenteral cases and millions of genital

| cases.

 

So the very idea of squirting live HIV into the mouths of

1,000,000 people causing AIDS is stupid, because there

are no cases of the oral transmission of AIDS....

 

:> The Options Project found that 7.8% (8 of 102) of recently

:> infected men who have sex with men in San Francisco

:> were probably infected through oral sex.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/oralsexqa.htm

 

And, oh, this:

 

| An animal study found that the minimal dose of simian

| immunodeficiency virus (SIV) (a virus closely related to

| HIV-1) required to achieve infection in adult rhesus

| monkeys through oral exposure was 6,000 times lower

| than was the minimal dose needed to achieve infection

| after rectal exposure. The researchers concluded that as

| with oral exposure to SIV by rhesus monkeys, oral

| exposure to HIV-1 by humans likely carries the risk of

| infection

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/hiv-vih/oral_e.html

 

Let's face it, peer review is hardly perfect.

Guest Godolphin&fellow
Posted

On Jun 11, 8:55 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

> On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

>

> Peer Review:

> evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in

> the SAME occupation, profession, or industry.

>

> The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation

>

> Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been

> successful. And who would not ask?

> This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke

 

I think I'm understanding your point. ...Pilt down man was for about

40 years, IIRC, taken seriously by the scientific community, yet it

rested on evidence that was entirely cooked up. I think it is true

that if evidence, or a new supposition, leans in the direction that

the science of the time favors than that evidence or concept will much

more readily rise to the level of a credible theory than if the

evidence or suppostion leads away from the favored line of thought.

The peers in a given become community of experts, if they aren't

careful, become but part of an echo chamber where the same views and

information are reinforced as 'reasonable' or 'correct'... while the

evidence in itself may be weaker than they imagine.

 

Of course this may not directly speak to a review of procedures used,

or the particular evidence (if conclusive) a given experiment elicits.

Guest Christopher A.Lee
Posted

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:24:10 -0700, Godolphin&fellow

<g4th1@netscape.net> wrote:

>On Jun 11, 8:55 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

>> On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

>>

>> Peer Review:

>> evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in

>> the SAME occupation, profession, or industry.

>>

>> The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation

>>

>> Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been

>> successful. And who would not ask?

>> This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke

>

>I think I'm understanding your point. ...Pilt down man was for about

>40 years, IIRC, taken seriously by the scientific community, yet it

 

No. It was always an anomoly, making it suspect.

 

All most scientists saw of it were plaster casts. Rmember, photography

was in its infancy.

>rested on evidence that was entirely cooked up. I think it is true

>that if evidence, or a new supposition, leans in the direction that

>the science of the time favors than that evidence or concept will much

>more readily rise to the level of a credible theory than if the

>evidence or suppostion leads away from the favored line of thought.

>The peers in a given become community of experts, if they aren't

>careful, become but part of an echo chamber where the same views and

>information are reinforced as 'reasonable' or 'correct'... while the

>evidence in itself may be weaker than they imagine.

>

>Of course this may not directly speak to a review of procedures used,

>or the particular evidence (if conclusive) a given experiment elicits.

Guest Codebreaker
Posted

On Jun 11, 8:56 pm, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:34:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Codebreaker

> <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> in

>

> <1181608442.824744.115...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote:

>

> >Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been

> >successful. And who would not ask?

> >This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke

>

> Books are not peer reviewed. There are other problems with your ideas,

> but getting the basics right would help.

 

 

Books are not peer-reviewed but publication of works are.

Books are publications, then book are peer-reviewed.

Think about it this way.

Have you ever seen a candidat to priesthood

who would disagree with the tenets

and teaching of the Church?

Whoever disagrees would not be ordained and If you

are ordained, then you have been approved by the Church.

Peer review works exactly the same way.

Just because your work has been peer-reviewed does not

means it is not flawed. It means that you are just spreading

around the same errors and dogmatic indoctrination as

your predecessors who peer-reviewd you no less.

So why all the fuss about peer-review as If it works

miracles

 

>

> --

> Matt Silberstein

>

> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

>

> http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org

>

> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Guest Codebreaker
Posted

On Jun 12, 12:20 pm, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:

> "Doc Smartass" <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message

>

> news:Xns994CE79FA39Faskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18...

>

>

>

>

>

> > Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote in

> >news:1181608442.824744.115560@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

>

> >> Subject: Peer Review Is A Joke

>

> > All you religious assholes have is a whacked-out opinion, no facts to

> > back you up, and the arrogant self-satisfaction that comes only from

> > abject stupidity.

>

> > Science has been kicking your asses and proving you wrong for millennia,

> > not just centuries, even when you assholes tried to muffle it or tie its

> > hands. It breaks the chains, your god gets smaller.

>

> > SCIENCE: planes, computers, cars, electronics, plastics, medicine

> > (including fixing shit in your head that you assholes fuck up), air

> > conditioning, spacecraft, radio, ball-point pens, the Internet, better

> > education, better understanding of life and ourselves. Fucking

> > calculators that whip 30-year-old computers. I've got a graphing

> > calculator that's 10 years old and smarter than you, boy.

>

> > What have you got?

>

> > RELIGION: dumbasses, institutionalized child molestation, demonization of

> > anything that goes against their dumbass opinions, a desperate need to

> > get involved in shit that doesn't concern them (oh, you're white, you

> > can'e marry that black person! Oh, you're gay, I'm going to have to kill

> > you!). Oh, there's one thing you fucks excel at--finding new ways to be

> > dumbasses despite having all the fucking information you need to educate

> > yourselves.

>

> > You're pathetic--you wear your chains willingly, you have the fucking

> > keys in your pocket, and you have the nerve to whine about the fucking

> > burden.

>

> > You're not qualified to discuss science--you shouldn't even be allowed to

> > partake of its sweet fruit.

>

> > You got nothing.

>

> Oh my. Were you channeling a kinder, gentler Stix?

 

"Push it babe, push it. Oh, babe, Oh babe. Oooooooooh"

 

> --

> Robyn

> Resident Witchypoo

> BAAWA Knight!

> #1557- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

Guest Codebreaker
Posted

On Jun 11, 9:01 pm, "kingdoodlesquat"

<neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:

> > Peer Review:

> > evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in

> > the SAME occupation, profession, or industry.

>

> > The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation

>

> so if you were tried in a court of law by a jury of your peers (& hence be

> peer reviewed), would they all have to be in the same occupation as you

> then? You are a clown sir.

 

 

You are blaming the dictionary not me.

Again according to the dictionary, peer review is an evaluation

of a person's work or performance by a group

of people in the SAME occupation, profession, or industry.

Prove that this definition is wrong

Guest Cary Kittrell
Posted

In article <1181691662.994434.310130@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Codebreaker <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> writes:

> On Jun 11, 9:01 pm, "kingdoodlesquat"

> <neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:

> > > Peer Review:

> > > evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in

> > > the SAME occupation, profession, or industry.

> >

> > > The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation

> >

> > so if you were tried in a court of law by a jury of your peers (& hence be

> > peer reviewed), would they all have to be in the same occupation as you

> > then? You are a clown sir.

>

>

> You are blaming the dictionary not me.

> Again according to the dictionary, peer review is an evaluation

> of a person's work or performance by a group

> of people in the SAME occupation, profession, or industry.

> Prove that this definition is wrong

>

 

Good point. Papers submitted to a journal of astrophysics

should be reviewed by plumbers, just to make certain that

there's no bias.

 

 

-- cary

Guest Codebreaker
Posted

On Jun 12, 8:04 pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:

> In article <1181691662.994434.310...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> writes:

>

>

>

>

>

> > On Jun 11, 9:01 pm, "kingdoodlesquat"

> > <neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:

> > > > Peer Review:

> > > > evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in

> > > > the SAME occupation, profession, or industry.

>

> > > > The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation

>

> > > so if you were tried in a court of law by a jury of your peers (& hence be

> > > peer reviewed), would they all have to be in the same occupation as you

> > > then? You are a clown sir.

>

> > You are blaming the dictionary not me.

> > Again according to the dictionary, peer review is an evaluation

> > of a person's work or performance by a group

> > of people in the SAME occupation, profession, or industry.

> > Prove that this definition is wrong

>

> Good point. Papers submitted to a journal of astrophysics

> should be reviewed by plumbers, just to make certain that

> there's no bias.

 

The problem arises here when an astrophysians want to

review a work in plumbing just to make sure the standards

in astrophysics have been respected.

DON'T YOU THINK?

 

 

>

> -- cary- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

Guest Codebreaker
Posted

On Jun 11, 9:43 pm, IAAH <i...@dodgeit.com> wrote:

> Codebreaker wrote:

> > On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

>

> > Peer Review:

> > evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in

> > the SAME occupation, profession, or industry.

>

> > The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation

>

> And who do you THINK should be reviewing and refereeing

> works on cellular biology for publication? A physicist?

> A priest? Some randomly selected pedestrian?

 

 

The whole system of peer reviewing is inefficient regardless

who reviews or NOT

>

>

>

> > Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been

> > successful. And who would not ask?

> > This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke

>

> No, it's expert review to verify procedures and

> conclusions.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...