Guest Codebreaker Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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 Quote
Guest kingdoodlesquat Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 > 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. Quote
Guest Codebreaker Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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 Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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 Peer Review is a joke Books are not peer reviewed.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" Quote
Guest Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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 Quote
Guest kingdoodlesquat Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 > > 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. Quote
Guest Peter Principle Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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 Quote
Guest IAAH Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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. Quote
Deathbringer Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Doc Smartass Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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! Quote
Guest Douglas Berry Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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 Quote
Guest ZenIsWhen Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "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. Quote
Guest Nosterill Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Geoff Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "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 Quote
Guest William Wingstedt Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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. > Quote
Guest JTEM Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Godolphin&fellow Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Codebreaker Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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" Quote
Guest Codebreaker Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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 - Quote
Guest Codebreaker Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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 Quote
Guest Cary Kittrell Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 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 Quote
Guest Codebreaker Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 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 - Quote
Guest Codebreaker Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 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. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.