The Big Picture on ID and this Forum

( #46

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #47 this last post is crossing a line into ad hominem, even slander, so I have hidden it. I have a very low tolerance for this from anonymous posters. Remember you are an anonymous poster, and there was much falsehood in your post, directed even at my career. Are you trying to get banned?

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #48

If you formal peer review in a journal, this is not strictly true. There are important contributions occasionally made outside formal peer review. Often peer reviewed papers are junk.


[I am sure that you are aware of everything I am writing, but just to clarify for the general audience . . .]

The requirement for peer review is the general rule. Any contributions made from outside of of peer review are tested through research that is peer reviewed.

What isn’t accepted by scientists are blog posts on websites, popular press books, and the like. If ID supporters think they can make an impact on the scientific community by writing books or writing articles at Evolution News & Views then they are sorely misguided. Scientists are looking for specific hypotheses, methods, data, and conclusions drawn from that work. Rough theories that could possibly produce testable hypotheses in the future are of interest, but they fall short of the final product that scientists are looking for.

I would also agree that there are many peer reviewed papers that are junk. Paraphrasing Churchill, peer review is the worst process for publishing science, except for all the others. Peer review is only the first hurdle that a theory needs to pass, and ID supporters so often fail to clear this first hurdle. There are notable exceptions that we have discussed elsewhere, but the list of work that could even loosely qualify as original research falls well short of the massive amount of ID science that supporters describe.


Concern trolling now. :clown_face:

( #51

I am not sure where you see any of those. Looks like you didn’t get it, and that’s too bad. Would you reconsider with an open mind?

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #52

Let’s put it this way In a long post you:

  1. Concluded I was an incompetent scientist, except with in a narrow range of expertise that you defined and does not actually represent my training.

  2. You asked me to return to my scientific work, because I was not just not good enough of a snake-oil salesman. Not only calling evolution false, you assert that everyone who helps explain evolution to the public is a snake oil salesman.

  3. You asserted I don’t have the wherewithal to design an experiment properly.

I could go on, but the key point is that you are are dipping into something called abuse of anonymity (What is Abuse of Anonymity?). At this point, after being repeatedly warned not to post links to your sight, you spammed us with more. Going forward, you are no longer allowed to post links to your own site. Period.

I want to remind you:

You are an idealist that wants this to be a debate of pure ideas. Do not expect this at Peaceful Science. We place higher value on informed experts who have earned the right to be heard by using their real identities and, even at times, risking their careers. We will always treat leaders from the ID movement, fro example, differently than you.

So let’s focus on an achievable goal:

If you are not on board with that, this is not the place for you.

( #53

Not what I said. I’ll leave it at that.

(George) #54

If you want credibility,, acknowledge that God is equally adept at using miracles as he is in using evolutionary principles, to create life on Earth.