MSimon Denounces Peer Review

[Schneibster]

"Church of peer review" my azz.

[choff]

So ten to twenty years from now when the climate temperature is still flatlined what will this tell us about peer review.

[Schneibster]

So ten to twenty years from now when the climate temperature is still flatlined what will this tell us about peer review.

So you don't "believe in" satellites?

How are you with the Moon Landing thing?

[GIThruster]

So ten to twenty years from now when the climate temperature is still flatlined what will this tell us about peer review.

Nothing. peer review only works when you have qualified scientists speaking in their sub-field. There is no field or sub-field of climatology. It's voodoo science. Until we reach a place where we know more than what we know we don;t know, there isn't going to be any legitimacy in theof field, so peer review doesn't mean anything.

That doesn't mean smart people don';t make smart observations. Just saying, climatology is currently still a hoax, perpetrated by thousands in order to gather federal funding.

[Schneibster]

So ten to twenty years from now when the climate temperature is still flatlined what will this tell us about peer review.

Nothing. peer review only works when you have qualified scientists speaking in their sub-field. There is no field or sub-field of climatology.

Of course not. It's called atmospheric and oceanic geophysics. Duh.

It's voodoo science.

It's peer reviewed. It's supported by forty years of satellite data. Do you, also, not "believe in" satellites? It's clear you don't "believe in" peer review.

Until we reach a place where we know more than what we know we don;t know, there isn't going to be any legitimacy in theof field, so peer review doesn't mean anything.

Fourteen thousand scientific papers don't mean anything?

Really?

What are you waiting for, the Second Coming of Einstein?

That doesn't mean smart people don';t make smart observations. Just saying, climatology is currently still a hoax, perpetrated by thousands in order to gather federal funding.

Congratulations: 80 Baez Points.

34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

You win: you're the biggest crackpot of all.

[Stubby]

DeltaV is right. Peer review is not infallible. Neither are scientists. Between the two there will be some errors.

However peer review is still the best way to judge scientific issues, unless someone wants to nominate another method like throwing darts, dice or using a ouija board?

[Schneibster]

DeltaV is right. Peer review is not infallible. Neither are scientists. Between the two there will be some errors.

I never said it was infallible. I can't believe you're repeating this lie about me too. It's pretty disappointing in you. It's obvious you're not really paying attention to what I'm saying.

I said the odds of peer review being wrong to the extent of 17,000 to 30 are astronomical.

I see you as attempting to dance on a tightrope that's on the very edge of the truth.

However peer review is still the best way to judge scientific issues, unless someone wants to nominate another method like throwing darts, dice or using a ouija board?

At least you're sane, if overly assumptionistic.

[Stubby]

My post was not directed at you so chill.
Just affirming what DeltaV said.
My post was directed more towards GiThruster because he said this

Until we reach a place where we know more than what we know we don;t know, there isn't going to be any legitimacy in theof field, so peer review doesn't mean anything.

( is there a word missing in this statement?)

If there is a better way to to verify scientific claims than peer review, we need to know what that might be so we can start using it ASAP. It might make parallel happy when it is applied to the eCat claims.

[Schneibster]

My post was not directed at you so chill.

Have you ever heard the expression, "throwing someone under the bus?"

[Schneibster]

If there is a better way to to verify scientific claims than peer review, we need to know what that might be so we can start using it ASAP.

I agree, but stress that nobody has found one since Bacon.

[Schneibster]

Come on, guy, did you seriously mean to denounce peer review?

Everyone realizes "peer review" means the magazine contacts several other scientists in your discipline, swears them to secrecy about your results until they're published, and then asks them to read your paper and criticize it, if they see anything wrong? And that you have the opportunity to respond (unless you did something wrong enough you're discredited)? Right? And that later on you'll be contacted to review theirs, right? Right? It's pretty democratic. Unless you're a crank and everyone can tell.

Seriously, a guy involved in fusion research claims peer review is flawed? And it's because he can't figure out global warming? Wow, that's really unfortunate. Especially on top of cold fusion. We really don't need incompetents involved in this. It really reduces the cred of the whole thing.

[Schneibster]

Scientists write, their fellows review, they respond (and if the publisher agrees they answered publish), then they go back to their research, then others write and then it's their turn to review.

This image of some cloudy committee that oversees them is science fiction. The reality is they are their own oversight committee. It works because there is competition between them, and furthermore motivation on the part of all to preserve accuracy, and awareness of past suppression is a part of their culture. There is respect for the iconoclast, for the contrarian. But the iconoclasts and contrarians preserve that respect by never engaging in false speculation nor ignoring established fact.

[Schneibster]

I have to admit I am still concerned about this.

It gives me real concern about whether PolyWell is real with a person who is this ignorant of science appearing to be a main proponent.

I hate to put it in these terms but you really leave me no choice.

[Schneibster]

Denying peer review is tantamount to denying science. I see no reason to even entertain this; are scientists in the field in question to be barred from reviewing the work in their field? Insanity. This can never work.

[Schneibster]

And the people who deny peer review are the very ones who want to install a star chamber.