6 posts were split to a new topic: What is Scientific Reputation?
I think it is fairer to say that the peer review at Bio-Complexity is poor. There is also pressure to publish quantity instead of quality.
However, I do think it is important for the journal to exist for no other reason than to get the work of ID supporters out into the light of day. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant.
I largley agree. A single solid paper in an unknown journal can change a field and even win a nobel prize. The appeal to authority implicit in insisting on certain journals misses how science progressed. ID undeniably faces bias against them, though there will be disagreement about how much is diserved or not. Rather than relying on a genetic fallacy, it is wiser to engage their ideas on merits, even if that takes us into philosophy and theology instead of a striclty scientific inquiry.
How does this apply to the origins of life scientists? Or the experimental evolutionary scientists?
It’s nonsense that has been preserved as science…Don’t ask me why…
Easy to explain. Most of them do great work. So their work is widely accepted by other scientists.
They only publish 3 to 4 paper a YEAR. That’s not quantity nor quality!
Do you realize how hard it is to be a successful scientist? First the training, a doctorate is a must, then get a job in your field, publishing is a must, making a credible name for one’s self takes decades. Then you got to get funding for whatever you do or you will literally starve. It is not an easy career path. If you go into industry, it is much more lucrative but you then must make money for your company with your research results.
There aren’t that many of them. Experiments take time. I worked on the same fossil
For over a year. You can’t expect an institution with a handful of scientists to publish a lot of papers per year.
No. I don’t. It’s actually easy. All you do is you come up with a theory and then you test it experimentally. If the tests prove your theory, and others replicate them, you become a successful scientists…
It’s harder to convince others of the validity of your theory if all you have is your imaginary speculations…
@J_Mac I thought you left? Are you sure you want to come back to tell all the scientist here that what we do is easy.
So many expert mathematicians here and nobody even commented on the category theory mentioned in the video and the paper by Dr. Wells. Quite frankly, I’m disappointed…
Do you want me to?
You don’t know me but I’m too lazy to hold a grudge…
Maybe you are not doing it right? Look at Dr. Lonnig. He performed hundreds if not thousands of mutagenesis experiments and not even one of his experiments evolved a new kind of plant…
That’s how he became a successful scientists by following the results of his experiments and not some imaginary, preconceived ideas…
It’s 50 years since I last studied anything in Category Theory. And it isn’t at all clear whether Wells is referring to that Category Theory or something totally different.
It’s painfully obvious that Wells referring to category theory is not clear to you…
This is the third time I’m telling you to watch the video at 40min mark… My kids are in high school and got it… Please don’t be an embarrassment to mathematicians…
I wrote to you @J_Mac, personally, and asked that you please refrain from conversing in such an aggressive way. I wrote as one of the few moderators (only maybe) who was in favor of allowing you to stay. You’ve, sadly, continued to make unnecessarily rude and aggressive comments when simple, polite statements would not only have sufficed, but actually inspired more of the conversation you seem to want to have. It is terribly unfortunate.
Reputation is also built up by toeing the party line and avoiding claims that the establishment considers ridiculous or unscientific.
I am not convinced scientists are all that worried about repeatability… If they were, there wouldnt be a 50% failure rate.
That simply isn’t true. Some of the most respected scientists are those that proved the consensus wrong, such as Dr. Warren and Dr. Marshall who received Nobel awards for their work on H. pylori and stomach ulcers. Their claims were highly contentious when they first made them, but they did the hard work and backed their claims.
If they were not concerned with repeatability then you wouldn’t hear about it. The fact that they spend time determining if results are repeatable demonstrates that they are concerned.
Overturning the consensus is how you can become more that respected. It is how you become reknown.
There are immense insentives to challenge the consensus which may be among the more parsimonious explanations for Shapiro.
Embryology is the study of how embryos develop.
God’s guidance is about how individual people are created.
There is a close relationship between the two, but they are distinct questions.