I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Ida fossil affair shows folly of "peer review" fetish

A lot of Darwinists won't even consider a scientific idea unless it has been published in a "peer reviewed" journal. Of course, this is just a cop-out that the Darwinists use to dodge inconvenient questions.

And the Ida fossil affair shows that the pre-publication "peer review" standard of quality isn't all that it is cracked up to be. A TimesOnline article says,

Now that the scientific details of Darwinius masillae are available for scrutiny by those who weren't given privileged advance access, some doubts are emerging. Not about the significance of the fossil per se -- it is a magnificent specimen and important -- but about the interpretation placed on it by the analysis team, and the hype that has surrounded the announcement.

. . . a popular book, a documentary, a website and an exhibition have been launched on the back of this find, before it has received full scientific scrutiny.

. . . You have to wonder, as did Karen James in a comment on my post yesterday, whether this research was deliberately rushed, and submitted to a journal (PLoS ONE) with a less rigorous pre-publication review system than Nature or Science, to fit with the media schedule.

It is probable that the pre-publication reviewers of the Ida fossil article were not even specialists in primates or primate evolution.

Even Sleazy PZ Myers and Fatheaded Ed Brayton have complained about the ID fossil hype. [link] [link] So is pre-publication peer review any guarantee of quality? Definitely no.

Also, the whole idea of the pre-publication peer-review standard is pointless, because many publications receive a lot of peer review after publication. It is ridiculous, for example, to say that Michael Behe's publications have not been peer-reviewed just because the peer review was post-publication rather than pre-publication. Behe's ideas have actually received far more "peer review" than most ideas in science.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Behe is one of the most "peer reviewed" scientists in scientific history. And so far, the reviewers have not come up with much more than hysteria and panic in order to try to discredit him. What most of his "peer reviewers" have been up to the last 13 years is nothing short of a shameful disgrace.

Monday, May 25, 2009 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger guy said...

theres a difference between actual peer review and Behe's.

mostly that mainstream science completely ignores him and all of the peer reviews are done by people of no real merit.

Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:48:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> mostly that mainstream science completely ignores him and all of the peer reviews are done by people of no real merit. <<<<<<<

Wrong, bozo -- prominent Darwinists like Ken Miller have peer-reviewed Behe.

Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:23:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home