re: Doesn't it strike you as awfully coincidental? (Science vs Religious Belief)

quote:

---

They were trying to control the review process and withhold raw data from being published for outside review?

---

correctamundo kemosabe.

quote:

---

It's not a misunderstanding but an over simplification for this message board. The premiss is that things go from organized to chaos, not the opposite unless acted upon by an outside force.

Why aren't other things simply created out of thin air? There is material everywhere and the energy to do so.

---

No, it is definitely a misunderstanding, and your "over simplification" is just plain wrong. The various forces and energy in the universe create order from chaos constantly. Once the energy from the sun does the work necessary to help a plant grow, the system still has higher entropy even though the plant is amazingly complex and organized.

quote:

---

Spidy, i know science isn't your thing.
I know you try to quote 'stuff' to make up for that.
Sometimes you do OK with the method.
Other times you don't.

This is one of those 'other times'. Peer review is an ongoing process. Peer review, scientific insight and correction continues long after publication. The source or location of publication -- even if it is "some blog" -- does not limit peer review in the least.

---

Actually, peer review in the context of scholarly publication refers specifically to the pre-publication process of review by one or more scientists in the same discipline. Like I said, this by itself is not sufficient to guarantee a quality publication - but it is a necessary requirement - and any journal lacking it can be dismissed outright.

quote:

---

I doubt anyone on this board has more credentials than spidy when it comes to science.

---

Thanks Powerman, but I'd be surprised if there aren't scientists on TD.com with quite a bit more experience than me.

quote:

---

peer review in the context of scholarly publication refers specifically to the pre-publication process

---

Peer review in the field of science does not. EVER!

quote:

---

Wasn't this the primary criticism of the climate change emails that were released? They were trying to control the review process and withhold raw data from being published for outside review?

---

I'm not an expert on the "climate gate" emails. You and TaxingAuthority. I'm sure whatever you said some blog said about them must be true.

quote:

---

They were trying to control the review process and withhold raw data from being published for outside review?

---

Now that you mention it, I think I do recall that "fiasco" They were trying to "withhold" raw data they were contractually obliged to withhold per their agreement with the entity that owned the copyrights to that data. I do remember that, yes.

quote:

---

Peer review in the field of science does not. EVER!

---

Whatever you say.

quote:

---

I'll take a blog that publishes all of the authors findings, data, and methods over a summary paper in a "peer reviewed" journal any day.

---

Such as?

Its interesting you know about the Climategate emails but have never heard of Baliunas and Soon.

quote:

---

Ah yes, as the Church did with Galileo.

---

I don't think the Church rejected Galileo because of his failure to conform to peer review. You're really smoking the crack pipe now!

quote:

---

Right. Lowered standards being publishing conflicting studies on climate change.

---

The journal itself agreed with Jones that its peer review process was flawed.