- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Doesn't it strike you as awfully coincidental? (Science vs Religious Belief)
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:23 pm to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:23 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Ah. I see. Different context though. I don't think I've ever quite him as a source.
you claim you never heard of Baliunas.
quote:You shouldn't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. You might also want to look into what was done with MacEntyres publications. A good cover story isn't vindication.
That amazes me. The threatened boycott of Climate Research was due to a publication by Baliunas - and you claim that Jone's claim the paper had no scientific merit is false, yet you don't even know enough about the paper to know its authors? Really?
1
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:26 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
So all I need to do is publish a scientific article in a journal which attains field limited peer input and review, then any additional peer review of that piece is over?
Yes.
quote:
No one else reviews it?
People can review it all they want after its published, but its no longer subject to the peer review process - that part is over.
quote:
No one else critiques it?
They can critique it all they want. Its no longer subject to peer review.
quote:
It it becomes a defacto untestable truth, simply by virtue of publication.
No. It just becomes published in final form. Save for typographical corrections, generally a paper that has completed peer review and is published is not modifiable. You misunderstand the term "peer review" entirely.
quote:
. . . . and you have the unmitigated gall to say I'm "full of crap"
You are.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:28 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:No. I was talking about using them as a source.
We've just established you haven't even read the "famous" ones - at least not enough to remember them - yet I have to read even more? Doesn't sound fair.
quote:Exactly.
And it clearly failed. The Soon&Baliunas paper was full of flaws.
quote:I could name two, but they contain some of our work
Name one.
quote:
You dismissed it because doing otherwise would require reading.
now your claiming to know what I think? How scientific! This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:29 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
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.
As I recall it the data they wanted to "withhold" wasn't even data they were withholding it was the result of words taken intentionally out of their context and trumpeted by red-faced deniers who are read and willing to believe anything which reinforces their beliefs. But its been a while since I read the emails.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:30 pm to Korkstand
Thank you for the discussion as I enjoy sharing thought processes as I continue to challenge my own on a daily basis. I understand your points and they are fair. My experiences and studies have left me with an awe for what we see in this so called life.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:32 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I don't think I've ever quite him as a source.
She's a woman.
quote:
You shouldn't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
Right - I should believe everything you say you've read somewhere.
quote:
You might also want to look into what was done with MacEntyres publications.
Its McIntyre, not MacEntyre. Do I have to teach you everything you know?
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:33 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Right - I should believe everything you say you've read somewhere.
Of course. He has the word authority in his screen name. You should believe everything he says.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:33 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I could name two
Clearly not.
quote:
No. I was talking about using them as a source.
You said you'd never heard of them. Was that not true?
quote:Glad we agree on something.
Exactly.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:35 pm to C
quote:
you guys kill my productivity...
Man I heard that. I told myself I wouldnt join another poli-forum every again. Horrible for employment...
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:36 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
She's a woman.
told you I didn't know her work. quote:Indeed. I'm a poor speeler.
Its McIntyre, not MacEntyre. Do I have to teach you everything you know?
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:38 pm to AUbused
I just did a rough calculation and figured out that if we were to store all the raw data that's ever gone through the research I do, it would comprise at least 1 Exabyte of data. Tell you what, if you the taxpayers want to buy us a 10 Exabyte drive I'm down with storing every bit of raw data we come across from now on out.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:39 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
told you I didn't know her work.
You apparently know it enough to be able to state that criticisms of it are flawed.
quote:
Indeed. I'm a poor speeler.
Did you have a point?
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:39 pm to lsusaintsfan4life
quote:
My experiences and studies have left me with an awe for what we see in this so called life.
The things that we witness are definitely awesome, no doubt about that!
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:39 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Allow me to quote from Wikipedia, a source with which you hold significant familiarity.
No. It just becomes published in final form. Save for typographical corrections, generally a paper that has completed peer review and is published is not modifiable.
You misunderstand the term "peer review" entirely.
quote:
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.
Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs. For example, medical peer review can refer to clinical peer review, or the peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses, or scientific peer review of journal articles, or to a secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of articles concurrently published in medical journals. Moreover, "medical peer review" has been used by the American Medical Association to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations, but also to the process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional society membership standards. Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, particularly as a database search term.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:40 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Cant != won't.
Clearly not.
quote:As a often quoted quoted source... No. I have not seen them as a widely quotes source (makes sense). I did not recall them from the CR context. That is true.
You said you'd never heard of them. Was that not true?
quote:Indeed. Not sure why, given the failure, you remain steadfastly devoted to the peer review publication as final arbiter of truth.
Glad we agree on something.
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:41 pm to ChineseBandit58
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:42 pm to AUbused
quote:Is it at least AS coincidental that you reap the benefits of religion everyday?
Doesn't it strike you as awfully coincidental that every day people trust their lives to the product of science in almost every single aspect of modern human life......science gets them to work, feeds them and their children, allows them to post on internet forums, communicate across the world, live WELL beyond the average lifespan of 100 years ago...................yet, CONVENIENTLY the .0001 percent of cases where they DO NOT believe in science just HAPPENS to be the places where science disagrees with their religion and/or politics? Evolution is the standout, but I've often heard evangelicals state that global warming is offensive because its hubris to think that humans could destroy Gods creation.
Namely civilization.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:43 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Where did I defend that paper?
You apparently know it enough to be able to state that criticisms of it are flawed.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:43 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
So could you. Yet you failed to even take note of the authors of the controversial paper that Jones was threatening to boycott over.
At the time, Climate Research (the journal in question in case you didn't get that, either), allowed editor shopping. Climate Research itself actually agreed its process was flawed.
Ouch. You've been here for a while it seems. After years of just outright embarrassing people by calling them on their BS around here, what percent actually own up to getting demolished like this?
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:47 pm to NC_Tigah
From your link:
yet claim it is false.
Interesting.
No secondary review process is required to determine the "clinical value" of articles on climate science - that value is exactly zero. For fricksakes.
quote:
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal.
yet claim it is false.
quote:
ME:
peer review in the context of scholarly publication refers specifically to the pre-publication process
YOU:
Peer review in the field of science does not. EVER!
Interesting.
quote:
, or to a secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of articles concurrently published in medical journals.
No secondary review process is required to determine the "clinical value" of articles on climate science - that value is exactly zero. For fricksakes.
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 2:49 pm
Page 14 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News