And I am not saying science is either.
But a simplified rule could replace religion.
That rule should be.....don't be a ****.
Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.
- Thread starter BBFs Unpopular View
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
And I am not saying science is either.
But a simplified rule could replace religion.
That rule should be.....don't be a ****.
I'm not jumping on the science vs religion roundabout again mate. Suffice it to say that I believe both are powerful forces and I don't accept your premise that Newton will have more influence in mankind's future than the message the Bible teaches.
Jebus, Einstein was a vocal hater of peer reviewIrony.
I guesss we should cancel Evolution, Darwin didn't have it peer reviewed.
Who peer reviewed Newton? Einstein? Who peer reviews anyone who does cutting edge science, they cannot be peer reviewed because they have no peers in their field
Peer review/selective publishing started mid 17th century. Both Newton and Darwin have been proven to be correct and were published as such at the time.
Einstein my have hated it, but it was part of his publishing process
what general drivel is this, what are ye talkinga bout like, no answer to what, I don't usually read your posts on this thread, for obvious reasons.
Are you generalising about peer review, not that you understand how it actually works.
Peer review these days depends on one thing or another, either your paper agrees with the reviewer or it is unfalsifiable. If your paper agrees with work done by the reviewer, then there is no stringent falsification test, cos obviously a reviewer is not going to falsify his or her own work.
Let me explain how peer review actually operates in institutions these days.
Funding gets split between research groups and they all peer review each others papers. We are taking theoretical science here, not every science.
if Gal yam is peer reviewing you, anything you theorise or interpret that agrees with Yam's own work on black holes and such, well you are going to pass.
Sorry that is not science, that is the institution science
Crying peer reveiew is narrowing it down to the science that is acceptible for the peer reviewers and there have been many cases of reviewers even sitting on papers, getting their own students to do the work and publish first.
But you are aware of all this right? You know that there was 42 scientists all peer reviewing each others work, and alls getting funding from the same source, the IPCC politicians
If you understood even half of what you cack about, you'd know that peer review is hijacking of science, peer review is sciencst the instituton, not science the method.
Now which journals would you find acceptible? Are some better than others? Why yes, if you publish in the best journals then you agree with mainstream conslusions, because the reviewers are the degfacto mainstream opinion.
So others have to settle for less high profile journals, and somehow the former is more credible than the latter, without even looking at the actual science.. farce.
I suppose you didn;t read this Far and disagree because you don't know anything about the process you blab on about, but you got a like, so you felt good.
basically you say "science is not science until > those guys say so" these "guys" you know nothing about at all. Funny that, you claim certain invididuals are the authority, science has nothing to do with authority. Right is right peer review or no. Where did they did you up ffs?
And how is right proven.
You cite information as fact but as far as I can see you can't back up the information you have used. Triffictraore has asked numerous times for you to explain one specific point, yet you post it as fact and will not explain it
Of the 300 papers Einstein had published it's thought only 1 was peer reviewed. Peer review is a flawed system but at least it is a system.
Well his work is still the greatest of modern physics ;-)
It's not ideal, but it's the only system that we have/and it works. Otherwise it would be a world ran by Wikipedia
It proves my point though, peer reivew papers are not facts, I never said it was completely flawed, PJ lauded Peer Review without even understanding the actuial process and the problematic history (established academics control Peer review)
My whole point about a peer reviewed paper is that it is not a fact. It is entirely open to corrutpion and group think
If you have a theory that opposes mainstream theory, regarldess of if you are right or wrong, paradigm changing discoveries face massive resistance.
PJ you are trying to offer science as pure.. we know the method is pure, science the institution is anything but.
The Royal Academi of sciences failed longitute in their peer review for 30 years, yep, correct science was refused because "the administrators" didn't agree.
There are many cases of this, when you see a large group of theoretical scientists all in agreement, you should be concerned.
Now as for Einstein, there is still big disagreement as to what part of some of Einsteins equations are. Take his equation that creates the universe, the energy momentum tensor ricci r = 0, r means different things to different astrophysicists. It is given different assignments in equations as there is no common agreement on what r is, some say one thing, others say another.
I do notice PJ that you say peer review is the bar of measurement, and yet Einstein who has not been "peer reviewed" is an exception? But peer review was a defence of Einstein for you wasn't it, until you learned he was not peer reviewed at all.
Tripping up lad, no clue what you are talking about, natural intelligence to come up with plausible bullshit won't fly here mate
Hmm. Nothing against Darwin and his achievements, but surely that's subjective?
How can you quantify the effect any single event or person has on the world? How can you weigh the importance of influence in one field against that in another?
Reminds me a bit of the portentous voice-overs in documentaries: " Then Came An Event That Would Change The World Of Science/Music/Cookery/Basket-Weaving Forever!!!"
All the scientists mentioned above have had huge influence in their fields and on the world in general, but so have many other people in many different walks of life. To pick one out as being more influential than any other is nothing more than expressing a personal preference, and not very scientific.
darwin has been a death blow to creationists, that imo is a pretty big effect.
Listen lad, Tobes likes your post because you are doing the same stupid idiot things theses idiots are.
I was not even talking to PJ. I was talking to RHC about science.
I dared to suggest that in 100 years were will learn more that will disprove science from 200 years previously, crazy right?
PJ come in with this "Buried?
his work is still inspiring new work almost 100 years later, surely some clueless idiot will dare to disagree."
Note PJ's scientific response.
So you wonder why I am condescending to PJ after he shows up gets involved and calls me a clueless idiot, when he doesn't even understand wtf he is talking about.
Are you now going to hide and not reply after your pointless ingnorant little comment, because you were too lazy to read back.
I am no academic, but you go and ask any academic stupid questions based on nothing and insult him, see if he\she gets condescending in his or her replies.? I guarantee you that is exactly what will happen.
I love paxman for that reason, when people say stupid ****, he does just that.
Apology accepted.
I am sure as you are the expert in this field that my humble opinion is of no great concern to you, however feel to answer the point raised by @terrifictraore and then maybe i will look into your question
"eg expand on your point to Obama about the climate always changing (you are right on this) maybe you could us the chart labelled figure 16 from Mcshane and wyner 2010 showing a Backcast from Bayesian Model of Section 5. CRU Northern Hemisphere annual mean land temperature to explain the cycle of change to me."
Science has been hijacked.
All funding of science has herded scientists into two groups, government funding, multinational funding, the gentlemen scientist who as answerable to himself has all but disappeared.
Both sources of funding are known to cause negative results to be hidden, the science behind Eugenics was pseudo science yet accepted as legit all over Europe and US less than 80 years ago, it's still alive today, with science creating biological agents to target specific ethnicities, now why the **** create stuff like that!!!!
Thanks for the support but I am now worried that I have accidentally asked something quite important.
am sure as you are the expert in this field that my humble opinion is of no great concern to you, however feel to answer the point raised by @terrifictraore and then maybe i will look into your question
First claiming I think I am an "expert" is trying to paint a picture, this debate has no need of such childish tricks, then you tag your girlfriend.
"eg expand on your point to Obama about the climate always changing (you are right on this) maybe you could us the chart labelled figure 16 from Mcshane and wyner 2010 showing a Backcast from Bayesian Model of Section 5. CRU Northern Hemisphere annual mean land temperature to explain the cycle of change to me."
Now you switch to Obama, talk about another subject you don't understand. And now after pretty much ignoring all of the sources and data on the subject.
So before we proceed, have you nothing to say to the replies on your garbage on Einstein and peer review?
You made some claims about Einstein, and I am asking what you base than on? So you avoid that and jump back to global warming.
You cannot explain the cycles in CRU average mean temp models, what causes nothern hemisphere cycles in part is Atlantic multidecadal oscillations.
If you have specific question ask it, any fool can go and copuy and paste something to answer that question without even undertstanding what they are pasting, I wouldn't bother.
So what is it you suddenly want to learn?
darwin has been a death blow to creationists, that imo is a pretty big effect.
Has he though?
Darwin distinguishes his "plan of creation" from the belief in "special creations" by drawing on a dual causation theory developed by Thomas Aquinas who distinguished between the primary or ultimate cause, God, and the secondary or mediate cause, natural phenomena. Secondary causation does not exclude and is not in conflict with primary causation. The last paragraphs of the Origin of Species contain this theological comment: 'To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. . . . There is grandeur in this view of life . . . having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.'
everyon talks about me and ignore the valid sources then tell me don't know. Tobes Astro PJ and TT, same 4 people over and over, same 4 ignorant trolls who are experts after reading a few links.
FYI toby baby, almost everything I post is from memory, aside from actual data. Because I researched the subject, something alien to you astro and the others, I call you "3 mnute experts"
When cold hard data is cited, it has to be copied, and that to you is a bad thing, because what else have you got, you are furrowing your brow in vein to try understand this topic. You need to research it.
Come back with some real questions, instead of photoshopped pictures of polar bears
Hmmm, I think there's still quite a lot of 'em about.darwin has been a death blow to creationists, that imo is a pretty big effect.
- Status