I think this is your worst display in the history of this forum. The fact that you actually think your argument is valid here is astounding. It’s just one big genetic fallacy. You can’t just hand wave the opposition away like that. I’m certainly not an ID guy either. Michael Denton has published a couple papers in Bio-complexity. He has also published papers in mainstream journals on the same topic. Including a letter in Nature. So according to you the latter papers should be paid attention to but not the former even though they are about the same thing?
1 Like
Bio-complexity journal is a sham. Set up as a sham and run as a sham. If Michael Denton published there it means he papers couldn’t be published in a reputable journal. And his reputation as a scientist is greatly damaged. Regarding Denton’s papers in legitimate journals, they get the same consideration as thousands of other papers in the subject area that are published each year. Only time will tell if any gets noticed at all as truly impactful, new, novel, insightful. Sometimes it takes decades to distinguish a great new piece of work, a truly original result. That how science works. Nobel prizes aren’t awarded for last month’s publications, it take time to determine impact. As I said before, all ID publications are destine for the scrap heap of scientific thought as they are not science but instead, as the Court deemed, are creationism which is religion disguised as science.
1 Like
But Denton could get published in other journals. Because he did. On the exact same topic. Strucutralism and biological Platonism. And as you say it takes time. So maybe Bio-Complexity will have an impact one day. I seriously doubt it but stop being intellectually lazy and actually address their arguments.
And that hurt his reputation immensely within the scientific community. He will have trouble getting other scientists to work with him. Science is not a one man endeavor, you need collaboration. And anyone publishing in creationist sham journal will be tainted the rest of their careers.
It hasn’t. Some legitimate mainstream top scientists have used his work to help theirs. Like Simon Conway Morris if I’m not mistaken. His school of thought is shared with multiple mainstream biologists. Morris. Andreas Wagner. Gunter Wagner. So obviously you can’t just go, “oh it was published in Bio-Complexity. It’s worthless.” Because some top evolutionary biologists don’t think so. If you want to address the academic standing of ID and its journal then start a thread. But an argument was presented in this thread so address the argument.
I’m working on a paper right now on the importance of insects at archaeological sites. The journal it may end end up in is a small journal and my paper will probably have very little or no impact. But it’s the start of my publishing career. Since I’m publishing in a journal that doesn’t really have too much impact would you consider my research worthless? @Patrick
Simon Conway Morris is an excellent scientist and writer. His work on convergent evolution is highly regarded by the scientific community.
Yes, I am saying that publishing in Bio Complexity for a real scientist is worse than worthless. It will damage their careers and credibility. The journal itself is a sham. Real scientist know this and will avoid it. Why do you think that they only have 3 to 4 papers a year in it whereas cutting edge Journals have hundreds of papers published a year while keeping an acceptance ratio of about 10%. Realize that in peer reviewed prestigious journals reject about 90% of the papers submitted. That is what peer review is all about.
1 Like
That’s great. Keep at it. Why not submit to the most prestigious archaeology journal? The peer review process will certainly make your paper significantly better. It could even open you up to other avenues of research and areas of collaboration with other researchers.
Here’s where I disagree with that.
Yes, bio-complexity has a poor reputation, and that’s appropriate.
However, fledgling areas in science have to start somewhere. And until that new area has earned respect, it will probably need its own journal.
I’m skeptical of ID and I’m skeptical of bio-complexity. But I don’t think we need to denounce it as a sham. We should mostly ignore it. But we should not rule out the possibility that some good science might be published there.
I denounce it as a sham because of how it is set up. This is not a like a new area of science branching off into a new journal. This is done all the time in science. I was one of the founders of the Journal of Lightwave Technology in the 1980’s when fiber optics was taking off. As the new fields mature, hundreds, perhaps thousands of papers are published and the journal grows in size and stature. That is the complete opposite of Bio Complexities track record. The number of publications has gone down, only 2 so far in 2018 from 3 in 2017. Whereas the number of evolutionary science journals goes up over time. And new ones become the place where new science is published. With open access publication, hundreds/thousands of papers are published as the field expands. For example when Ligo’s published discovery of gravitational waves from collapsing neutron stars, hundreds of papers were submitted on r-process nuclear synthesis of gold and silver, as well as new calculations and models of neutron stars. One discovery spurs new research and new science and the fields expands to look in those new frontiers.
They claim it is a new area.
I don’t expect anything to come from this “new area”.
If I’m right, that nothing new will come of it, then their journal will continue to be largely ignored, and ID will fall flat on its face. I don’t need to call it out as a sham, for that only gives them political ammunition to claim that they are being unjustly treated. Better to just let it fail on its own.
1 Like
ten years ago. And what have they produced since? Not much. Inflation theory of the universe was one short paper by Alan Guth in 1981, then another by Andre Linke in 1982, year by year more and more papers published. Now 30 years later, inflation taught in grad school. Thousands of scientists actively researching it both theoretically and through measurements. Yet still a theory but looking more and more likely as the best description of the early universe that fits with observations.
Mostly, some laughter.
Still, better to just allow it to fail on its own, and not give them excuses to blame others.
It will not fall on it own because of how it is funded. The political organization DI is keeping it going under the guise of a scientific anti-evolution journal.
Group Theory?? That not my area at all, but now I’m curious how he thinks Group Theory ties in.
{… some time passes …}
Category Theory, not gorup Theory. 
You might think they should be the same thing, but no. Category theory doesn’t make its appearance until the final page, I didn’t have time for a careful read, but it appears Wells in making an analogy, and not a formal arguments based on information and category theory.
1 Like
Yes, Bio-Complexity is a peer reviewed legitimate journal.
Evidence please.
Neither is your way of doing or accepting “science” … Peer review done by people who peer review based on their preconceived ideology… Laughable
But whom am l talking to? Someone who accepts speculative science over experimental evidence…
No wonder you are an atheist…
Double good-bye!
BTW: I wrote this post 2 days ago. Due to some unexplainable rules, one is allowed to post an OP, but, unfortunately, he has a set number of comments he can use to defend it.
I have also edited the Group Theory to Category Theory, but it wasn’t saved.
Dan,
Please see my BTW comment to Patrick
My kids were playing around with this stuff and argued about set, category and group theories…
Windows surface preserves the input and changes it according to the usage…
1 Like
Peer reviewed science does have more value than an opinion.
The purpose of publishing in peer reviewed journals is two fold. First, scientists need to communicate their findings to other scientists. Second, peer review should catch any major errors in the paper, be it methodological errors or misinterpretation of results.
Very rarely do peer reviewers repeat the experiments in the paper, nor does peer review guarantee that the results are repeatable. The whole point is that you can’t know if results are repeatable if no one knows what experiments you have done or the data that the experiments produced. The primary purpose of peer review is communication of results so that others can determine if your findings are repeatable and reliable.
Science is absolutely susceptible to those things. This is why there is oversight and peer review. Most importantly, career advancement is based on reputation. If you are caught fudging data or cheating then you could seriously damage your career. Even honest mistakes can sometimes damage careers.
2 Likes