Peer Review Tyranny

a reply to: Mary Rose

Maybe their public safety. [Just kidding.]

that's not too far off base.

def. a safety issue for them....

but...the 'public safety' issue for those whom find out the worst of their dreams are coming true......to which their reactions will vary, you know how crazy people get....maybe not by themselves, but in a group, things tend to change.....for many this is going to be the straw that breaks the camels back.

I just want answers....it's my right as an American.....and the duty to demand.

a reply to: soundstyle

I guess I got over the shock years ago and I forget about that.

That's a serious topic.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: soundstyle

I guess I got over the shock years ago and I forget about that.

That's a serious topic.

I can't even look at them without getting furious...knowing they are still romping around the playing field.

I think peer review is a needed process when it is done correctly.

and I can't understand how a claim of new science phenomenon occurring can by-pass that scientific method of operation....

just because of whom is saying it.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: soundstyle
I am discussing science and 'peer review'...why are you distracting from those points?

Additionally, the drumbeat that you're getting from others is highly suspect.

Then you're listening to the wrong song because I don't buy the official story related to 9/11

Why would people find which sub-forum you're in so damned important?

Then there shouldn't be a need to differentiate between topics at all by that logic. The site should just be a giant open forum. Why give your thread a title or topic if its all so arbitrary? Hey... It's your topic and thread, if you're all for this thing crashing off the rails and going helper skelter then I wont mention it again. But the fact remains that the specifics of soundstyle's train of thought have been discussed and dissected ad infinitum in the 9/11 and he would have had a lot more traction in the appropriate forum. But as I said, its your thread...

Is the problem that people just can't handle the truth, so the pejorative "conspiracy theory" is needed to lend that suggestion of ridicule in order to shift everyone off-target and obfuscate the subject matter?

I'm not sure if anyone told you or not but this entire website was predicated in conspiracy theories.

originally posted by: peter vlar
I'm not sure if anyone told you or not but this entire website was predicated in conspiracy theories.

Irrelevant.

originally posted by: soundstyle
a reply to: peter vlar

I am discussing science and 'peer review'...why are you distracting from those points?

But you actually aren't on topic when you derail the thread and turn it in a 9/11 specific direction and you go on to admit why in a reply to Mary Rose where you whine that you didn't put this in the proper forum because nobody will pay attention to it because of MSM biases. ATS is predicated on conspiracy theories so its fair to say that a high percentage of posters at least have a passing interest in conspiracies and the number of posts and threads in that forum would seem to indicate that you're a little off base on the reception you think it would get there. You've been posting for 3 days, how do you actually know what kind of reception you would get. Or are YOU biased because of MSM viewpoints on 9/11 and just assume its the last door on the left where conspiracy nerds get locked away from the sunlight?

clearly your agenda is to attempt to discredit my person RATHER than the SCIENCE I bring in.......why is that?

doesn't science set you free!!!!!!

It was sarcasm, pull that stick out,stand up straight and relax a little. Just because someone didn't pat you on the head, say "good boy" and give you a treat after ever 9/11 reference doesn't make their replies a personal attack.

there is NO peer reviewable data.

there is ONE author of the official claims pushed in this Country.....NIST!
they are the ones whom MUST prove their claims by a PEER REVIEW of the data they claim shows this NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon where LOW TEMP thermal expansion created conditions GLOBALLY for unified acceleration EQUAL to g.

and they refuse to put out their ONLY supporting data for peer review....all 68000+ data files of variables that tell the models what to do, HOW to behave.

and ANY other so-called scientific white paper offering ANY peer review support of these UNPROVEN, non-peer reviewed claims, is worth less than the white paper on the roll in your bathroom.

So that is the really long winded version of " No, I haven't bothered to read them all" ? Or is it the long version of "none of the conform to or verify my own POV"? Because there are a multitude of peer reviewed papers on the topic.

Here are some of the nonexistent, peer reviewed papers-
www.hindawi.com...
multi-science.metapress.com...
www.nrcresearchpress.com...
japanfocus.org...
www.inderscience.com...
911inacademia.files.wordpress.com...
papers.ssrn.com...
philosophy.cah.ucf.edu...
www.benthamscience.com...
www.anarchist-developments.org...
www.anarchist-developments.org...
www.bentham.org...
911inacademia.files.wordpress.com...
www.physics.byu.edu...


The above are just a few. Google scholar is your friend.

Sorry, you don't get to change the rules just because you don't like them. In science, if you are the one making the claim the onus is solely upon you to support your thesis. It's pretty basic

ABSOLUTELY!!!!...give the man a cigar.

that is the Dictum of both Law and Debate....Those whom assert MUST prove.

I think you're full of marshmallow fluff if that is the case.

is that your 'scientific' analysis?
this is the science forum.....where is the supporting evidence of that?????
where is your peer review!
contradiction and being obstinate is not very scientific.
your entire post has been a personal attack on me......completely void of science.

No it was me saying I don't think you know what you're talking about and I was using alternative language to avoid violating board rules against profanity. The only reason you think I'm personally attacking you is because there was not a big circle jerk hug fest over you throwing 9/11 drama into a thread that, in my opinion was not the right place for it. If I wanted it to be personal I would've tucked my sack back and cried to the mods and have them delete your posts. I come to this site to learn and debate, you can't debate people if you shut them down now can you?

a reply to: Mary Rose

Within the context of my other statements it was rather relevant, which is why you didn't address the other statements and Gish galloped your way off into the sunset.

This thread is not about 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!

Please continue with the topic of the OP....we have a forum for 9/11 and that is the place it should be discussed.
Posts that do discuss that event and/or that conspiracy may be removed.

You are responsible for your own posts.

a reply to: Mary Rose

Howdy,

Can I ask for some clarification? In your post (the one I am replying to) you say that people should not find what sub-forum one posts in an important thing, yes?

In your OP, you seemed quite concerned about information being posted in certain sub-forums.
"Peer review should not be cited as a requirement before something can be discussed in the Science and Technology forum..."

So, why do you find it important to post "alternative" (not real) science in a Science and Technology sub-forum? This seems a tad bit logically inconsistent to me. Or am I misinterpreting things?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: peter vlar

Here are some of the nonexistent, peer reviewed papers-

thank you Peter for showing the intention of this thread...."PEER REVIEW Tyranny"

all those so-called peer reviewed reports you listed base their initial claims on NON PEER REVIEWED data.

they are getting second hand information to base their white paper science on that has NEVER been validated, verified, or PEER REVIEWED outside the authors.

those peer reviews are worthless within a scientific context.

If I wanted it to be personal I would've tucked my sack back and cried to the mods and have them delete your posts.

seems you did!

a reply to: hydeman11

So, why do you find it important to post "alternative" (not real) science in a Science and Technology sub-forum?

you are questioning her reply to me.....so, where is the ...'alternative...not real' ..science I posted?


was it that mass can not accelerate equal to g. AND make the path it falls into...because that is an agreed scientific fact.

or maybe was it a new science phenomenon called low temp thermal expansion that seems to make that impossibility, a possibility...

do you know of any peer review done where the phenomenon of "low temp thermal expansion" makes this possible by removing structure to allow acceleration.

a reply to: Mary Rose

Peter gave you a perfect example of "peer review tyranny".

listing all those peer reviews, which all base their initial claims on non peer reviewed data.....all of them.

they all cite the same source of non peer reviewed new science occurring FIRST....then they do their reports.

a reply to: Mary Rose

This is in-part the domain of Paul Feyerabend - against method.

A good book in my opinion, very insightful, well worth a read if you haven`t already.

Sorry MR this was not aimed specifically at you, pressed the wrong reply button...newbies eh

originally posted by: soundstyle
a reply to: peter vlar


thank you Peter for showing the intention of this thread...."PEER REVIEW Tyranny"

Apparently you're not getting it. The point of the thread was that people who dabble in what would be considered by some to be pseudoscience aren't able to get their papers published and that they are being bullied and ostracized by academia at large. Providing you with a list of peer reviewed papers on your off topic subject in no way validates that premise.

all those so-called peer reviewed reports you listed base their initial claims on NON PEER REVIEWED data.

How about you put up or shut up. You're either completely ignorant and making foolish accusations or you know better and are just trolling the thread. Either way you aren't supporting these statements with anything but piss and vinegar

they are getting second hand information to base their white paper science on that has NEVER been validated, verified, or PEER REVIEWED outside the authors. .

Ahhh so you actually have no clue how the process works. Isn't that cute. Here you are raging against the dying of the light. Meanwhile, it's a beautiful sunny day and you just won't look out the curtains.

those peer reviews are worthless within a scientific context.

Perhaps you should write to every publication that I linked you to and explain that to them. I'm sure they would promptly print retractions once you explained it to them.

seems you did,......but yours are shill here though.....go figure huh!

Why are you being such a cry baby about following the rules? EVERYONE has to follow them so believe whatever you wish but get hooked on phonics and look again because some of mine were also removed. If I were going to be as big of a sally as you are I would've reported you to mods and ignored all of your posts but I did not. If you've got a problem with how it was done, then I suggest you take it up with donttreadonme, the mod who removed postings from both of us. You just signed up so I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but you were the one who stomped their feet and pouted. This isn't elementary school and I'm not a tattletale. Mods look in on these posts pretty regularly. They were the ones who decided your tripe didn't belong here. Just because I was correct and tried to explain to you where the appropriate forum was shouldn't make me the bad guy.


You might want to follow this link and famiatize yourself with the T&C for posting on ATS. It will help alleviate your burgeoning persecution complex. www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: soundstyle

So you're trying to tell me you read through everyone of those papers? In their entirety? You're so full I it it's coming out your ears now.
Additionally, that was a minuscule sampling of the vast number if papers pertaining to that topic. Just admit you didn't read it all and we can call it a day.

That whole persecution complex you've got going on really is a shame because you seek like you mean well for the most part and that particular topic is something you feel very strongly about which is usually the makings if a decent poster.

a reply to: peter vlar

So you're trying to tell me you read through everyone of those papers? In their entirety? You're so full I it it's coming out your ears now.

yet there is NOTHING you offer to show me wrong.

and yes Peter....I did.

specially when they all mostly focus on the 'dynamics' rather than the cause for the dynamics.

so again, thank you for highlighting the intent of this thread.

The point of the thread was that people who dabble in what would be considered by some to be pseudoscience aren't able to get their papers published

yea.....and along with the pseudoscience, I added that there are those whom don't use the peer review....and have their science go straight to FACT!

then we have the latter, other so-called, 'peer review' put forth by outside sources, all basing their science on the previous unreleased, NON PEER REVIEWED data by the singular source whom refuses peer review.

doesn't make the other papers too valid....does it.

originally posted by: soundstyle
a reply to: peter vlar

yet there is NOTHING you offer to show me wrong.

and yes Peter....I did.

specially when they all mostly focus on the 'dynamics' rather than the cause for the dynamics.

so again, thank you for highlighting the intent of this thread.

Thank me all you want but you are still completely missing the point of the OP

yea.....and along with the pseudoscience, I added that there are those whom don't use the peer review....and have their science go straight to FACT!

Give some examples then. Am I supposed to just take your word for it? just provide names of the scientists or links to the data that you believe has skipped the peer review process? Either way, you still don't seem to understand the point of the OP

then we have the latter, other so-called, 'peer review' put forth by outside sources, all basing their science on the previous unreleased, NON PEER REVIEWED data by the singular source whom refuses peer review.

doesn't make the other papers too valid....does it.

if the data can be verified and replicated independently then it has been peer reviewed. You keep claiming the peer reviewed data came from non peer reviewed sources, its irrelevant. If the data can be independently confirmed and reproduced then it has been peer reviewed. If someone, like you perhaps, has done their own research and come to different conclusions then they should write their own paper rebutting the original and send it out for publication. If you were actually correct, every journal that printed in error would have to print a retraction statement as well as give you your moment in the spotlight. Can the process be flawed sometimes? Of course, it involves human beings who are notorious for being greedy, sycophantic screw ups. But the process overall works and often times BECAUSE of those greedy sycophantic humans. Papers are rejected and overturned all the time because others attempt to review or recreate the data and find the original to be in error. A German scientist recently was outed as a complete fraud for falsifying work for years and years in order to suck up grant money. He was eventually discovered by someone attempting to replicate his data. Wen they couldn't, they passed it along to someone else who also could not replicate the data. Tis guys career is ruined and rightly so because these rare instances disappoint people so much that they simply stop trusting the entire system. A handful of cheats and charlatans however does not invalidate the entirety of the process

a reply to: peter vlar

A handful of cheats and charlatans however does not invalidate the entirety of the process

it is suppose to protect from it.

what happens when there is NO peer review and yet we have so-called reviewed papers based on NON peer reviewed data?

A German scientist recently was outed as a complete fraud for falsifying work for years

and that was found by the all important....."replication of data"....now what occurs when the "replication" is NOT allowed when claiming new science?

NO peer review of the science...but the science automatically goes to fact.

and then you have a plethora of so-called peer reviews based on that, NON replicated data pushed as fact?

enter..."peer review tyranny".

a reply to: soundstyle

What bothers me the most about this is the level at which this is taking place: The National Institute of Standards and Technology.