Why don't creationists publish?

[Stripe]

Stop. Before you make yourself look any more foolish, just stop.

:darwinsm:

I'm not the one who implied that peer review and repeatability were the same thing and then slunk away from that idea when it was pointed out how stupid it was.

I'm not the guy who said an experiment was "likely" to be repeated if the paper was peer reviewed. That's an assertion that shows you have no experience with the process of either.

You're in over your head again, Cabinethead. And we're only in the shallow end.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Ktoyou]

:darwinsm:

I'm not the one who implied that peer review and repeatability were the same thing and then slunk away from that idea when it was pointed out how stupid it was.

I'm not the guy who said an experiment was "likely" to be repeated if the paper was peer reviewed. That's an assertion that shows you have no experience with the process of either.

You're in over your head again, Cabinethead. And we're only in the shallow end.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

A peer review is when several similar studies are examined to see the method and results, to make predictions on validity.

Replication is when a group of scientists try to use similar data to achieve the same result, thus leading to a higher validity.

 

[CabinetMaker]

:darwinsm:

I'm not the one who implied that peer review and repeatability were the same thing and then slunk away from that idea when it was pointed out how stupid it was.

You are the only one who made such a stupid implication.

I'm not the guy who said an experiment was "likely" to be repeated if the paper was peer reviewed. That's an assertion that shows you have no experience with the process of either.

There is no assertion there at all. But if you make a claim such as there is a large body of supercritical water under the crust of the Earth, you can bet people are going to independently investigate that claim. If you claim to have an apparatus that can accomplish cold fusion, you can bet people are going to try and reproduce that apparatus to verify your claim.

The process varies by discipline of course.

 

[Stripe]

You are the only one who made such a stupid implication.

:darwinsm:

You mean when I said that peer review has nothing to do with repeatability? That implication that peer review is repeatability?

:rotfl:

There is no assertion there at all.

:darwinsm:

Except you really did say that peer review made repetition "likely."

You really did say that. :chuckle:

You really don't have a clue.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

:darwinsm:

You mean when I said that peer review has nothing to do with repeatability? That implication that peer review is repeatability?

:rotfl:



:darwinsm:

Except you really did say that peer review made repetition "likely."

You really did say that. :chuckle:

You really don't have a clue.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I am truly sorry that your ability to comprehend what has been said is beyond your ability to understand.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's pretty simple Arthur. Journals are private enterprises that cater to a specific audience. An atheist should not expect to get published in peer reviewed Christian journals... Nor does a Christian expect to get published in secular journals if they attack the the ruling paradigm / belief system of the subscribers.

This isn't about Christianity or atheism, it's about science. The reason why an old earth/evolution is accepted around the world is because the evidence supports it and as with any theory in science it was and is subject to scrutiny aka peer review. Kent Hovind has even been criticized by AIG and creationists for his outlandish views so his criticizing the peer review system is a joke in itself.

 

[6days]

)Peer review is) key part of the scientific process.

No, but it is key to getting published. Peer review can be helpful full, but almost everyone recognizes it is a flawed process. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

There is no reason that a "creation scientist" .....

Why the quote marks? Your bandwagon argument for who gets published is noted.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No, but it is key to getting published. Peer review can be helpful full, but almost everyone recognizes it is a flawed process. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
Why the quote marks? Your bandwagon argument for who gets published is noted.

Scientists usually present data and their analysis of that data. If they did any experiments to confirm their hypothesis then then they include the experiment details and the results. If they have any starting assumptions, those are clearly laid out and discussed. If the starting assumptions are wrong, then the rest of experiment is meaningless. Many of the "creation scientists" I have read start with a large number of assertions that are either not supported or are flat out wrong when compared to what is actually known through previous scientific investigation.

That is the other advantage of peer reviewed journals. People can see what has been done and then they can continue to build on the work of others. If you are going to offer a paper that completely throws out most or all of the work done be previous generations of scientists then you had better have irrefutable new evidence and experiments to support your paper.

 

[6days]

This isn't about Christianity or atheism, it's about science.

This is about our beliefs about the past, and about our history. Everyone uses the exact same data and scientific method. Science has very little to do with it. We can't do repeatable experiments on a one-time event in the past. We can do repeatable experiments with things in the present (dating methods, genetic variation, measure distance etc) and make conclusions about our history

...so his criticizing the peer review system is a joke in itself.

I don't know of any scientist who doesn't recognize the flaws in the peer review process.

 

[CabinetMaker]

This is about our beliefs about the past, and about our history. Everyone uses the exact same data and scientific method. Science has very little to do with it. We can't do repeatable experiments on a one-time event in the past. We can do repeatable experiments with things in the present (dating methods, genetic variation, measure distance etc) and make conclusions about our history.

We can look at events from the past based on the evidence that those events leave behind. We can compare the evidence to other known events and compare the results to see if they are consistent. Sadly, not everyone uses the exact same data or scientific method. Some contrive data and other use a method to get to a preconceived result. That is what peer review is good for, it finds the people who are frauds. Look at what happened to Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Some contrive data and other use a method to get to a preconceived result.

Are you referring to the contrived data and methods used by the IPCC?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Are you referring to the contrived data and methods used by the IPCC?

If the shoe fits.

 

[Arthur Brain]

This is about our beliefs about the past, and about our history. Everyone uses the exact same data and scientific method. Science has very little to do with it. We can't do repeatable experiments on a one-time event in the past. We can do repeatable experiments with things in the present (dating methods, genetic variation, measure distance etc) and make conclusions about our history

With respect, your beliefs, mine or anyone else's about the past are completely irrelevant where it comes to science. Frankly, not everybody uses the scientific method either, creationists for a start. The scientific method involves amassing data, analysing the findings and formulating theories that best support the evidence, modifying as necessary. Creationism starts with a conclusion based on a literal reading of Genesis and then tries to fit theories in with that belief while discarding anything that contradicts it. That's not the scientific method by a long shot.

I don't know of any scientist who doesn't recognize the flaws in the peer review process.

Like any system, it isn't going to be perfect but I don't hear of many scientists wanting to do away with it either.

 

[6days]

Scientists usually present data and their analysis of that data. If they did any experiments to confirm their hypothesis then then they include the experiment details and the results.

True

If they have any starting assumptions, those are clearly laid out and discussed.

False, when we are discussing common ancestry (or a common designer). If you wish, I can provide examples. The paridigm of common ancestry is the starting assumption, and interpretations of the data are made to fit the starting assumption.

That is the other advantage of peer reviewed journals. People can see what has been done and then they can continue to build on the work of others.

I agree that peer review is a beneficial process. However it is a flawed process when we are discussing our beliefs about the past. Their likely are hundreds of examples... We could talk about the numerous false starting assumptions about Neandertals and how science has proven that wrong. (Even Piltdown man was pure reviewed and published as fact, in a journal many years after most of the scientific community was recognizing the problem). Those are just two examples, but the starting assumptions are made in archaeology, geology, astronomy, genetics Etc)

 

[Arthur Brain]

True
False, when we are discussing common ancestry (or a common designer). If you wish, I can provide examples. The paridigm of common ancestry is the starting assumption, and interpretations of the data are made to fit the starting assumption.
I agree that peer review is a beneficial process. However it is a flawed process when we are discussing our beliefs about the past. Their likely are hundreds of examples... We could talk about the numerous false starting assumptions about Neandertals and how science has proven that wrong. (Even Piltdown man was pure reviewed and published as fact, in a journal many years after most of the scientific community was recognizing the problem). Those are just two examples, but the starting assumptions are made in archaeology, geology, astronomy, genetics Etc)

Not sure how but you've attributed your quotes as being mine when they're actually Cabinetmaker's.

 

[CabinetMaker]

True
False, when we are discussing common ancestry (or a common designer). If you wish, I can provide examples. The paridigm of common ancestry is the starting assumption, and interpretations of the data are made to fit the starting assumption.

What is interesting about science is that it does not stand still. You may state a starting assumption and people may agree with you and the paper is accepted. But then something happens to change your starting assumption and invalidate it. Back to the drawing board. It is a learning process.

I agree that peer review is a beneficial process. However it is a flawed process when we are discussing our beliefs about the past. Their likely are hundreds of examples... We could talk about the numerous false starting assumptions about Neandertals and how science has proven that wrong. (Even Piltdown man was pure reviewed and published as fact, in a journal many years after most of the scientific community was recognizing the problem). Those are just two examples, but the starting assumptions are made in archaeology, geology, astronomy, genetics Etc)

Yes, it is a flawed process. But it is the best we have at the moment. But at least we have a process to follow and it does seem to aid in the over all process of scientific discovery.

 

[ok doser]

The scientific method involves amassing data, analysing the findings and formulating theories that best support the evidence, modifying as necessary.

:doh:

:nono:

 

[fool]

it's a game that you have to play in certain areas of academia - those who learn to play it well tend to get promoted

In Academia you have to publish or you won't be in Academia for long.

 

[6days]

We can look at events from the past based on the evidence that those events leave behind. We can compare the evidence to other known events and compare the results to see if they are consistent.

Very good!
The problem for evolutionists is wild extrapolations that are consistent with their belief system but inconsistent with the data.

For example geneticists admit the data (mutation rate) is inconsistent with 'uphill' evolution. But, because they start with the conclusion that 'molecule to molecular biologist' evolution is truth, they ignore the data and invent rescue devices such as synergistic epistasis.

 

[User Name]

Creationists don't publish because creationists don't do science.