17
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 880:
Line 880: − − === Problems with Peer Review === − (unindent) Andy and Roger, I appreciate both of your viewpoints, and I'd like to sidetrack this discussion to an important point about peer review and "refereed" journals. It is often argued that since idea X has no papers supporting it, to be found in scientific journals, it therefore is "unscientific", i.e., false (see [[pseudoscience]]). However, we are aware of a significant number of ideas which we know to be true (or at least likely), but which mainstream journals have refused to publish. − *Ideas on global warming which run counter to the [[AGW]] hypothesis, such as [[sunspots and cosmic rays]] affecting cloud formation: several researchers have published reports showing a much stronger correlation between the sunspot cycle and earth atmosphere temperature than that between the carbon dioxide level and temperature, but ''Science'' spiked the most important such paper on the grounds that it would be "of no interest" to their readers! − *Intelligent design: The last time a journal editor managed to get an ID paper through peer review, he was forced to resign. The refrain, "No peer reviewed papers on ID" is the strongest (non-scientific) argument against ID, but it's based on [[circular reasoning]]. − Perhaps we need an article on [[Scientific censorship]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:12, 16 August 2010 (EDT) Line 904:
Line 898: + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 14:54, August 19, 2010
, 14:54, August 19, 2010Sorry, put in in the wrong section.
::::::::::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::please, reconsider the block of my ISP at home (block ID #63109, intended blockee: 109.90.0.0/16)
::::::::::::please, reconsider the block of my ISP at home (block ID #63109, intended blockee: 109.90.0.0/16)
A final note to Andy: Since you and RonLar are clearly enjoying this debate, and clearly consider each other to be worthy adversaries, I'd suggest that you unblock RonLar's IP address, if indeed it is still blocked. It's the honorable and gentlemanly thing to do. [[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 10:52, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
A final note to Andy: Since you and RonLar are clearly enjoying this debate, and clearly consider each other to be worthy adversaries, I'd suggest that you unblock RonLar's IP address, if indeed it is still blocked. It's the honorable and gentlemanly thing to do. [[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 10:52, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
=== Problems with Peer Review ===
(unindent) Andy and Roger, I appreciate both of your viewpoints, and I'd like to sidetrack this discussion to an important point about peer review and "refereed" journals. It is often argued that since idea X has no papers supporting it, to be found in scientific journals, it therefore is "unscientific", i.e., false (see [[pseudoscience]]). However, we are aware of a significant number of ideas which we know to be true (or at least likely), but which mainstream journals have refused to publish.
*Ideas on global warming which run counter to the [[AGW]] hypothesis, such as [[sunspots and cosmic rays]] affecting cloud formation: several researchers have published reports showing a much stronger correlation between the sunspot cycle and earth atmosphere temperature than that between the carbon dioxide level and temperature, but ''Science'' spiked the most important such paper on the grounds that it would be "of no interest" to their readers!
*Intelligent design: The last time a journal editor managed to get an ID paper through peer review, he was forced to resign. The refrain, "No peer reviewed papers on ID" is the strongest (non-scientific) argument against ID, but it's based on [[circular reasoning]].
Perhaps we need an article on [[Scientific censorship]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:12, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
== Quote mine ==
== Quote mine ==