For those who wish to play the science game...

reply to post by Byrd


Sure, valid points but the reason I stated pop-sci articles was so that people without institutional credentials to access closed access journals (I.e. about 99% of posters on here) at least had some opportunity to validate their claims. It's certainly not the most desirable option, though.

reply to post by Byrd


your right about it being buyer bewere
i have completly got the wrong end of the stick reading some of this stuff,
when trying to interperate pop science that is difficult to understand
but the beauty of ats is some one who,
can explain it will come along and give relevent info,
and the majority of readers get the "in depth" answer from the corrections
in a way the members tend to "help" with sources and resources for other members
and the debate quickly seperates the wheat from the chaff,
and the key points to any debate can be readily addresed


it is in this spirit that science can be accesable to more people

to a degree this forum is an open reveiw to the members and all are free to express with the motto
Deny Ignorance

there is a logical order to science
and that also applies to who reads what and how
there is now an inforamtion overload of science papers
so much so that no body can read everything,
in this light when you do read something interesting,
by simply posting it others who would not have normally
see it, get to see the information for themselves


xploder

reply to post by SLAYER69

What if it is a new topic/solution/discovery etc. Which hasn't been peer-reviewed yet? Should we also leave out theoretically possible scientifically based conjecture and speculation?

We can speculate all we want, so long as we recognize that speculation is all we are doing, or can do.

Lacking the necessary subject expertise, we should not take our own speculations seriously, far less present them to others as if they were proven facts.

reply to post by boncho

Depressing ain't it? Like watching a herd of animals walk themselves off a cliff.

I’m stealing this.

I don’t normally quote Jethro Tull lyrics, but this

The lemming-hearted hordes
Running ever faster to the shore, singing
‘Isn’t it grand to be playing to the stand
Dead or alive?’

seems to sum up the bulk of ATS rather neatly.

reply to post by XPLodER

I quite like the idea of ATS having its own informal peer-review process. The trouble is, of course, we don’t know who is a legitimately qualified member of the review board and who’s just sounding off. I wouldn’t say all the people you named are equally reliable. That unspellable fellow whose name begins with A, for instance: very dodgy.

reply to post by Byrd

PLOS, by the way, is not exactly a "peer reviewed journal." It's really more of a "public reviewed journal." They place articles online and anyone can declare themselves a reviewer and approve an article. So they get some truly absurd things accepted.

Too right, ma’am. Here’s an example just quoted in a different thread: Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control. This was posted as legitimate scientific support of homeopathic claims, based on the fact that it appeared in PLoS.

Here’s the thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are some interesting opinions in this thread. I wasn't going to post but I guess I should as I carry the scientist tag on my avatar.

Sorry to quote myself:-

Originally posted by Pimander
I will give you some idea of where I stand on academia, regardless of the fact that I do not need to do so to support my point of view.(edit)

I don't believe that academia has been corrupted specifically to discredit anybody. I do think that there is a self regulating mechanism, in that most academics interpret data in terms of the current paradigm. There are corrupt academics but no more than in any other profession. I know that from experience.

It has always been that way. Researchers who collect data (edit) which protects the status quo may have the easier careers. That is true and contributes to stagnation in some fields. The ones who act like guardians of the paradigm, attacking radical ideas, often get opportunities to work in academia, because the people who dish out the jobs are the ones who created the paradigm - the older top academics.

The ones who make revolutionary breakthroughs are the ones who challenge this situation. But they also have a tough time climbing the ladder... They frequently seem out of touch with current thinking. Often they turn out to be wrong. But we need these seeming mavericks, as they bring fresh ideas and occasionally revolutionary discoveries. Without free thinkers we'd still be believing in a flat Earth.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So while science itself is not corrupt, there is plenty of reason to challenge and be suspicious of orthodoxy. Granted, many claims that appear on sites like ATS will turn out to be outlandish or misunderstood science. However, for me that is a small price to pay for the chance that some suppressed ideas get a hearing before a large readership.

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. ~ Quoted in Arago, Eulogy of Galileo (1874)

And YES I used the word SUPPRESSED. Those of you who are still trapped in some delusional bubble and believe that science is some whiter than white priesthood - wake up. As I said above, there is corruption in science just like in any other profession.

Where is the evidence? Here is some.

An IPMS survey earlier this year found that a third of scientists working in government or in recently privatised laboratories had been asked to change their research findings. Some 17 per cent said that they had had to alter findings to suit the customer's preferred outcome, while 10 per cent said there was pressure on them to bend their results to help secure contracts.
www.timeshighereducation.co.uk...

While science is an incredibly liberating and powerful method - as an institution it is not without its flaws. Bashing the whole of science is not helpful. However, critical scrutiny from outside the mainstream is also a great thing. As scientists we have no monopoly on truth.

I'm all for the peer reviewed process, but what happens when this process is shut down?

Something like 1400 architects and engineers believe WTC towers were controlled demolitions, scientists have peer reviewed the findings of nano thermite in the dust of the towers, yet, nothing, those aren't "real" peer review processes.

Or how about when NIST takes 7 years to come out with a report (WTC 7) and then gives the community 1 week to review it (and they still find holes in it), and yet, even after proving it wrong, they publish it anyways. Official government science, an oxymoron if there ever was one.

So, if the peer review is an important cornerstone of science, which I believe it is, and NIST did not employ proper peer review procedures, therefore NIST is not scientific.

I like this science game.

reply to post by john_bmth

only to cherry pick mainstream science to support your claims is hypocritical. You want to play the science game, play by the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game!

I thought that is how science works too. Someone has to cheery pick what to look for or what experiment is done. What is odjective about that.

OK then....I'm learning more here than on the regular threads....keep going guys!!!

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by john_bmth

 

only to cherry pick mainstream science to support your claims is hypocritical. You want to play the science game, play by the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game!

I thought that is how science works too. Someone has to cheery pick what to look for or what experiment is done. What is odjective about that.

I'm not following you. You reference previous work that is pertinent to the scope of your research so there is a paper trail of good science for you to build upon and for all to see. That's a far cry from picking and distorting tidbits out of context to support wild claims whilst conveniently ignoring or misrepresenting information that doesn't.

Originally posted by filosophia
I'm all for the peer reviewed process, but what happens when this process is shut down?

Something like 1400 architects and engineers believe WTC towers were controlled demolitions, scientists have peer reviewed the findings of nano thermite in the dust of the towers, yet, nothing, those aren't "real" peer review processes.

I'm always sceptical of these "x number of scientists believe 9/11 was an inside job", especially when the considerably more than x scientists who don't believe this do not get a mention. Still, they're more than welcome to write up their findings in a paper for their community at large to judge. You may argue that they would be hard pushed to get their findings published due to bias (and you may well be right) but 9/11 is such an emotionally and politically charged event that I very much doubt we'll get to the bottom of it any time soon. Give it a few decades for the dust to settle and scientists and engineers may be able to have a more sober debate on the topic, though.

Or how about when NIST takes 7 years to come out with a report (WTC 7) and then gives the community 1 week to review it (and they still find holes in it), and yet, even after proving it wrong, they publish it anyways. Official government science, an oxymoron if there ever was one.

I do not doubt that the politicisation of science is a bad thing, but it's unfair to tarnish all scientists with the same brush.

So, if the peer review is an important cornerstone of science, which I believe it is, and NIST did not employ proper peer review procedures, therefore NIST is not scientific.

I like this science game.

You may be right, you may be wrong, I am not qualified to say. Nothing is perfect once human beings get involved but I think we can both agree that peer review is considerably better than the hijacking of science by snakeoil salesmen (not that you were suggesting otherwise, but that's largely who my OP was aimed at so I figured I'd wrap this post up with that).

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by XPLodER

 

I quite like the idea of ATS having its own informal peer-review process. The trouble is, of course, we don’t know who is a legitimately qualified member of the review board and who’s just sounding off. I wouldn’t say all the people you named are equally reliable. That unspellable fellow whose name begins with A, for instance: very dodgy.

Yeah, you want to watch out for that Astyanax character, he's a crafty one

I for one would not want to post my personal details on here but such details could be passed on to an impartial, trusted moderator. I don't think proving credentials would be that difficult if this was the case.

Originally posted by amcdermott20
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Agreed. Keep in mind there are a million articles like this online.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

So, peer reviewed journals might not be the end all perfect scientific reference we like to believe.

Just playing the devil's advocate.

Let me advocate against the Devil's advocate. I know a few scientists. I've heard the ARRRGHS! and seen the published retractions when some newspaper reporter gets the wrong idea. There are better sources for things, including press releases about the research itself (as made by the university/institute/science team.)

In general I agree. However, I do see some logistical flaws with the proposal in the OP:

• As was touched on, most scientific journals are behind a pay wall, and we are in a recession/depression. I for one cannot afford to both conduct my research and pay for access to a few dozen different scientific journal sites. So I choose to conduct my research. I just spent about $40 on parts needed for an experiment; that would pay for less than a month's subscription to the major journal sites out there, but it allows me to advance my projects.
  
  
• ATS is not composed of scientists. True, we have some seriously intelligent minds on here, but the majority are not well-versed in science and those who may be well-versed in one area may not be in another. Those scientific journals are often almost impossible to read unless one is familiar with the terminology of that particular field. I myself recently needed to research into a field removed from my normal area of expertise and spent most of my research time looking up terms to understand what is being said (and looking up more terms to understand the first term and so on). There is something to be said for educating those who have not been properly indoctrinated into scientific fields and such education must be presented in understandable terms to be effective.
  
  
• The term 'peer-reviewed' is poorly understood at best. Peer review simply means that others with knowledge in that field have either reviewed the material for accuracy or have successfully duplicated the results. The easiest way to accomplish this peer-review is of course to publish the work in a scientific journal to be read by other scientists in that field, but it is not the only way. It is completely possible for me to publish a work on ATS that can be peer-reviewed by another member also familiar with the field.
  
  
• I am still looking for a definition of the term 'scientist' that is inclusive of all possibilities. Is a scientist only someone who works in a lab? If so, does he stop being a scientist and become a layman if he retires or is laid off? Does all his previous work cease to have validity? In my view, a scientist is someone who understands the science in question and who conducts themselves in a matter consistent with the scientific method. By that definition, all scientists do not even have access to scientific journals.
  
  
• Scientists are typically right to some degree, but that does not mean they are all-knowing. To immediately accept an argument simply because 'a scientists said so' is directly contradictory to the scientific method and is historically a pretty good way to make oneself eventually look like a fool. Sir Isaac Newton proposed his Laws of Motion based on sound science, and they are still used extensively today. They are not incorrect, but they are incomplete as shown by results of experiments based on Albert Einstein's Relativity. Had science not had the open mind to at least question the Laws of Motion, GPS systems would not work correctly and we would have a very hard time exploring space.

I also think there are quite enough 'rules' already out there as-is. I really don't think we need more; we instead need more thought. The best way to promote that is by example, not by trying to follow rules.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by filosophia
I'm all for the peer reviewed process, but what happens when this process is shut down?

Then I have to ask, "what do you think a peer review is?" It SHOULD be a review of the subject by people who know a lot about the subject.

Something like 1400 architects and engineers believe WTC towers were controlled demolitions, scientists have peer reviewed the findings of nano thermite in the dust of the towers, yet, nothing, those aren't "real" peer review processes.

An excellent example. I'm going to argue that people are ignoring peer review in favor of "pseudo-peer review" because they like the results better.

For example:
* is there a list of those architects and engineers (and have you checked the list or even 30% of them to confirm this is what they believe and they're real.)
* are they architects who are familiar with the design issues of skyscraperss or do they just design one story ranch houses. I would listen to the first and dismiss the second.
* are the engineers people from engineering material science with a speciality in demolition or in construction materials? If they're computer engineers, they go to the back of the line, thank you.
* Who are the "nanothermite" (this sounds bogus, frankly) claims coming from and are the scientists (if any) people who work with explosives and metals technologies or are they "some joe with a microscope and a BSc in biology? Or a PhD in philosophy?"

In other words, who's reviewing that evidence and are they qualified to review it?

For example, I can review a paper and comment on it if it involves physics... but I'm not a qualified peer reviewer. I'm just a teacher with an opinion. If I think the whole thing is excitingly true and my friend who's a math professor thinks it's a load of hooey, his would be closer to a peer review (so pay attention to him) and my opinion is... opinion. I'm not qualified to peer review.

Or how about when NIST takes 7 years to come out with a report (WTC 7) and then gives the community 1 week to review it (and they still find holes in it), and yet, even after proving it wrong, they publish it anyways. Official government science, an oxymoron if there ever was one.

* How many pieces of data did they collect? You're treating it as though they had just a few hundred items that they looked at and then went "done!"
* How long did it take them to identify the data? You seem to think that they went through a few hundred items and identified them all in a few weeks using a team of a thousand.
* How long did it take to place the data in context? Did you think all those fragments fell and were tagged by psyonic forces as they fell? How long do you think it takes to do DNA comparison? How long do you think it takes to tell a piece burned plastic from a computer from burned plastic from a microwave?
* How long did it take to identify all the fragments from each of the 100+ floors and place them by floor?
How long did it take to identify how the damage (or non-damage occurred?)

Have you really considered how long it took to collect the data in the first place? Have you ever tried doing archaeology to see how long it takes to get data and clean it up and sort it and identify it and then explain it?

So, if the peer review is an important cornerstone of science, which I believe it is, and NIST did not employ proper peer review procedures, therefore NIST is not scientific.

I like this science game.

I'm not sure you understand the science of forensics.

reply to post by SLAYER69


so basically Slayer, business as usual

Originally posted by Gab1159
May I remind you that you are in a conspiracy forum? Are you the science police or something. I don't want to be rude, but sometimes I wonder if there are any truth seeker on here.

Here let me tell you what I think is happening:
The people you were referring to aren't "against" science (or "real science" if you prefer) or scientific institutions/journals. What these people are against is the dismissal of everything that is not peer-reviewed.

"You want to play the science game, you play by the rules."

So what are the rules exactly? The peer-review concept is rigged, and extremely selective. I mean, it's a fact that it is selective. Since you have totally ignored my reply that I addressed to you in my last thread, let me explain it once more in a very very brief way.

Now show me the rules! You're not the one who's gonna write them, but they must exist right? Where can I see the rules?

Money controls everything. With money comes power. You don't need 10,000 scientists to be "in the cover-up", you need a well oiled up system that can keep the status quo alive. Scientists don't lie, they report to an institution that lies, sometimes. (You seem not to believe in a status quo...) So what is better than making everyone believe that for a technology/piece of science to be true and operable, it has to be peer-reviewed by a certain "credible" and absolute scientific institution? The thing is, yes, with these institutions we've been able to invent internet, satellites, cars, and so on. But we could be way above that by now if there were no middle-man (the peer-review concept).

So what is your rule exactly? I've always thought one of the primary rule of science was to question everything, not take anything as absolute. Was I wrong the whole time? Because the whole thing with the peer-review, is that if something is not peer-reviewed, people see it as "false", or simple inoperable. That goes against questioning everything. What if the institutions really are controlled? You HAVE to ask yourself this question. "The important thing is not to stop questioning." - Einstein So how does a website become "fringe" and "not good enough"? By going against the generally accepted ideas? By not getting peer-reviewed?

"if you have a problem with mainstream sources then stop abusing mainstream science to support your claims! "
But then you are going to link me to this thread

I will say it once more but, man, you're on a conspiratorial website! If you don't believe in any conspiracy at all, why are you here? Why aren't you on a science forums with like-minded people? I would expect people would come here with a different mindset...The thing is...there is just one conspiracy...one you have to understand. Once you understand THE conspiracy, you will understand the people you're accusing of stupidity's point.

Now let me tell you the rule here: open mindset. You are on this website to challenge you're view of reality. If you want peer-reviewed articles and nothing else, there are hundreds of scientific forums for that.

I encourage people to challenge everything that is "mainstream", this is the purpose of this website. There is nothing hypocritical in challenging the status quo (read mainstream science). What is hypocritical is to ignore everything that is not peer-reviewed by a "credible" institutions with "credible" scientists. Who makes them "credible"? Is it the fact that they have a phd...that has been earned mostly by repeating what you were told at school? What if the education system was wrong?

BRAVO Gab1159

I made one of the greatest discoveries in geology as a geologist back in the 1990's. I've spent decades doing the research and testing, and I'm willing to let any and all scientific bodies try to prove that I'm wrong about the fact that earthquakes are easy to forecast accurately.

Yet.... the USGS and NEHRP are scared to death to try my system out. They have never seen my system, and they don't have a clue as to how it works. Why don't they try my system out? Simply because if they do, they will loose most of their funding. I sent many letters to the USGS and the NEHRP members over the years, and they don't want to detect earthquakes before they strike, or they would be using my system.

Earthquakes of every magnitude are easy to detect before they strike. All you have to do is to realize that in order for any earthquake of any sized magnitude to release its stored energy, it must already have energy stored in the rocks in order to release it and it's measurable well before any earthquake strikes.

If you don't believe me that these scientific peer review bodies USGS and NEHRP don't want to review my knowledge, then simply email them here on the Internet and ask them why they don't try my scientific methods.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by RussianScientists
That's interesting.

Lets test you system on ATS. When and where will the next major Earthquake be? If you're right then it will be impossible to ignore your system.

Originally posted by RussianScientists
I made one of the greatest discoveries in geology as a geologist back in the 1990's. I've spent decades doing the research and testing, and I'm willing to let any and all scientific bodies try to prove that I'm wrong about the fact that earthquakes are easy to forecast accurately.

How do you mean "forecast accurately? -- do you mean a "100% chance of an earthquake of a certain magnitude and a certain depth on a certain date" or do you mean an "80% chance of an earthquake between magnitude x and magnitude y in a small range of depths on a certain week" or do you mean "some sort of earthquake happening and it's some sort of strength and it could be at any depth along this general fault line some time in the next month or two?"

There's a huge difference.

Yet.... the USGS and NEHRP are scared to death to try my system out.

I doubt that. I think they probably don't know anything about what you're doing for one of four reasons
* presented to the wrong people
* idea has already been tried and a better model has been found
* idea is poorly communicated (in other words, the way you write about it wouldn't make it into a popular science magazine and the wrong terminology (or apparent lack of knowledge about terminology such as rock formations) is used.)
* no background for the idea is shown (in other words, no papers cited, no similar works cited, no models cited (even if only for the purpose of rejecting them by showing their failure rate.)

They have never seen my system, and they don't have a clue as to how it works. Why don't they try my system out? Simply because if they do, they will loose most of their funding.

Why should they?

Why should they stop work and test every single idea presented to them?

I don't think you understand where they get their funding from or what it's for. If they have a different method of predicting earthquakes, this means funding for new tools and new computers and a lot of new research and it has implications for more research areas. A proper method of predicting earthquakes won't put them out of business or cut their funding.

If anything, it will INCREASE funding. People will pay a lot for an accurate forecast.

I sent many letters to the USGS and the NEHRP members over the years, and they don't want to detect earthquakes before they strike, or they would be using my system.

This suggests that you don't have a lot of contact with scientists and you don't know how to bring things to their attention. Letters aren't effective. They get letters from everybody out there who can predict earthquakes with sticks, insects, arthritis, planetary conjunctions, psychic phenomena, "disturbances in the force", string theory... the list is really endless. Everyone else sending these letters are also telling USGS and NEHRP that their methods that will "positively 100% detect earthquakes before they strike" and all are guaranteed to work.

Earthquakes of every magnitude are easy to detect before they strike. All you have to do is to realize that in order for any earthquake of any sized magnitude to release its stored energy, it must already have energy stored in the rocks in order to release it and it's measurable well before any earthquake strikes.

Uhh... the USGS has been using stress (energy) along fault lines to predict the likelihood of earthquakes for a very long time now. It sounds like you're telling them that your new discovery is actually what they have been doing for years.

There are ways to get new information to scientists, but letters and email really isn't the way to go.

You can, however, present your data here and we'd be glad to monitor it for you and compare it to the standard predictions and see which one is more accurate.