Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

the dangers of scientific dissent.

LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 6:40:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Objection to ID is not based on objection to scientific dissent, more that it's an objection to scientists not being scientific. There is a difference.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 6:53:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Look. The ID researchers can write whatever they like. The papers will face the rigors of peer-review. Just crying "unfair" is just silly. Do you want to force non-ID scientist to accept the research of ID people? Like affirmative action for scientific research?
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 6:57:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

There are two possibilities. The first is that there is some sort of scientific illuminati who has some sort of atheistic evolutionist religion and will punish rational scientists who present the evidence that disproves the dogma.

The second possibility is that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, most creationist arguments are easily refutable and badly misinterpret the scientific evidence, and this debate was basically resolved over 150 years ago because of the evidence. So any teachers who claim creationism is true are treated badly sometimes because they are being completely ridiculous. For example a long time ago the debate over whether the earth was round or flat was settled because of all the evidence. So if a teacher tries to claim the earth is flat this will probably do a lot of damage to his career and get laughed out of the school.

A good test to see which of these possibilities are true is to anonymously poll scientists and see what they think. If there is a conspiracy then we should expect to see a large minority of scientists who believe in creationism but are afraid to publicly declare their beliefs. If evolution has so much evidence that the debate is over then we should see almost universal support for evolution, and almost nothing for creationism.

What we find in anonymous polling is that 95-99% of scientists accept the evidence for the theory of evolution while 1-3% are creationist most likely because of their fundamentalist Christian backgrounds.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 7:08:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Utter nonsense.

The article cites one Richard Sternberg as evidence for this, and that he was targetted because "he had the courage to allow a pro-intelligent design technical article to be published in the scientific journal he edited after it passed peer-review."

And yet, the completely opposite was true. Sternberg chose himself as the reviewer and editor. As Ed Brayton says:

"Sternberg argues that he had the authority to publish Meyer's paper. But having that authority does not excuse the professional and ethical misjudgments. If you know that the publication of a pro-ID paper in a Smithsonian journal is going to cause an outcry, and you have close ties to the ID movement and to the author of this paper specifically, the ethical thing to do would be to excuse yourself from handling that paper and allow someone without those personal and professional ties to the author and subject of the paper to decide whether it should be published."

What a complete and utterly dishonest approach of describing what actually happened to Sternberg. But then again, no one(except IDers) are surprised that a Pro-ID website is being dishonest.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 7:08:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case.
Scientists have an extensive array of best-practice tools to study any human behaviour, including the behaviour of scientists.

While discussion of science as a sociological behaviour is both legitimate and fascinating, failure to use the best tools available represents either laziness or intellectual dishonesty, which in this case is understandable, since the site you quoted is driven by an ideological and political agenda.

So my request: when seeking to discuss behaviours of scientists, LBoH, please cite peer-reviewed scientific research surveying how they actually behave, and avoid sites where cherry-picked talking heads launch opinionated polemics salted with decontextualised quotes for the consumption of ignorant audiences who have never personally met a scientist or worked in the sciences themselves.

I think it would make any subsequent discussion better informed and far more constructive than the one you've created in this thread.

Thanks.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 7:53:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 7:08:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case.
Scientists have an extensive array of best-practice tools to study any human behaviour, including the behaviour of scientists.


Ha! What a classic line! Yeah, that belongs in a movie somewhere, a classic expression of some favored class circling the wagons around themselves.
This space for rent.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 9:51:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Bad example, but OP's overall concerns aren't exactly baseless.

You will find much more legitimate and egregious examples in the controversies surrounding politically charged topics.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 10:56:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 7:53:02 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/18/2016 7:08:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case.
Scientists have an extensive array of best-practice tools to study any human behaviour, including the behaviour of scientists.


Ha! What a classic line! Yeah, that belongs in a movie somewhere, a classic expression of some favored class circling the wagons around themselves.

That would be the people best able to evaluate the work of others? Would you rather replace that system with cranks and conspiracy theorists?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 1:47:35 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 7:53:02 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/18/2016 7:08:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case.
Scientists have an extensive array of best-practice tools to study any human behaviour, including the behaviour of scientists.
Ha! What a classic line! Yeah, that belongs in a movie somewhere, a classic expression of some favored class circling the wagons around themselves.
Science admits anyone of any ethnicity, sex, nation, faith or creed who upholds scientific ethics and principles and is willing to develop competence in its methods. That very diversity holds it to account without any central institution to govern it.

Religion meanwhile, has the world's oldest history of conceited, self-serving patriarchies marginalising and vilifying dissidents while denying all accountability for their ignorance and error.

Much as you're doing now.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 2:46:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 1:47:35 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/18/2016 7:53:02 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/18/2016 7:08:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case.
Scientists have an extensive array of best-practice tools to study any human behaviour, including the behaviour of scientists.
Ha! What a classic line! Yeah, that belongs in a movie somewhere, a classic expression of some favored class circling the wagons around themselves.
Science admits anyone of any ethnicity, sex, nation, faith or creed who upholds scientific ethics and principles and is willing to develop competence in its methods. That very diversity holds it to account without any central institution to govern it.

Political correctness is governed by the government.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 11:57:29 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 2:46:08 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 3/19/2016 1:47:35 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/18/2016 7:53:02 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/18/2016 7:08:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case.
Scientists have an extensive array of best-practice tools to study any human behaviour, including the behaviour of scientists.
Ha! What a classic line! Yeah, that belongs in a movie somewhere, a classic expression of some favored class circling the wagons around themselves.
Science admits anyone of any ethnicity, sex, nation, faith or creed who upholds scientific ethics and principles and is willing to develop competence in its methods. That very diversity holds it to account without any central institution to govern it.

Political correctness is governed by the government.

I dunno, it's more tribal, I think. It is enforced not by the sword but by shaming. Or on the other side of the coin, by synthetic respect. One is awarded 50 IQ points just for endorsing evolution and climate change, and if you can say 'black lives matter', then you must have a heart of gold as well.

It's a cult, is really what it is, very much the same vibe. It can feel really good to be approved of by the group, and to be encouraged to think of one's self as one of the superior people.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 11:59:29 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 10:56:22 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/18/2016 7:53:02 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/18/2016 7:08:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case.
Scientists have an extensive array of best-practice tools to study any human behaviour, including the behaviour of scientists.


Ha! What a classic line! Yeah, that belongs in a movie somewhere, a classic expression of some favored class circling the wagons around themselves.

That would be the people best able to evaluate the work of others? Would you rather replace that system with cranks and conspiracy theorists?

I'd go back to the scientific method, if it were me.
This space for rent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 2:44:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 11:59:29 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/18/2016 10:56:22 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/18/2016 7:53:02 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/18/2016 7:08:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case.
Scientists have an extensive array of best-practice tools to study any human behaviour, including the behaviour of scientists.


Ha! What a classic line! Yeah, that belongs in a movie somewhere, a classic expression of some favored class circling the wagons around themselves.

That would be the people best able to evaluate the work of others? Would you rather replace that system with cranks and conspiracy theorists?

I'd go back to the scientific method, if it were me.

I know you are just being flippant, but there you go.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 3:20:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 6:53:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Look. The ID researchers can write whatever they like. The papers will face the rigors of peer-review. Just crying "unfair" is just silly. Do you want to force non-ID scientist to accept the research of ID people? Like affirmative action for scientific research?

But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?

How can one truly have confidence in a system which to all intents and purpose describes a hypothetical process as "fact" when discussing science? Any truly honest seeker after truth should be alarmed at such language but they don't appear to care just like many in these forums.

Claiming a hypothetical process is an irrefutable established fact is itself the epitome of non-scientific, this fact alone should be enough to treat the "peer review process" with suspicion when it comes to claims about life and evolution.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 3:27:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 6:57:47 PM, distraff wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

There are two possibilities. The first is that there is some sort of scientific illuminati who has some sort of atheistic evolutionist religion and will punish rational scientists who present the evidence that disproves the dogma.

The second possibility is that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, most creationist arguments are easily refutable and badly misinterpret the scientific evidence, and this debate was basically resolved over 150 years ago because of the evidence. So any teachers who claim creationism is true are treated badly sometimes because they are being completely ridiculous. For example a long time ago the debate over whether the earth was round or flat was settled because of all the evidence. So if a teacher tries to claim the earth is flat this will probably do a lot of damage to his career and get laughed out of the school.

A good test to see which of these possibilities are true is to anonymously poll scientists and see what they think. If there is a conspiracy then we should expect to see a large minority of scientists who believe in creationism but are afraid to publicly declare their beliefs. If evolution has so much evidence that the debate is over then we should see almost universal support for evolution, and almost nothing for creationism.

What we find in anonymous polling is that 95-99% of scientists accept the evidence for the theory of evolution while 1-3% are creationist most likely because of their fundamentalist Christian backgrounds.

Of course there's a wealth of observational data that is consistent with Darwinian claims, but selecting only things that support evolution and disregarding those that undermine it cannot be allowed to masquerade as proof that the hypothesis is an established irrefutable fact.

Furthermore it is not only "creationists" who object to some of the claims made abut Darwinism, there are plenty of educated, certificated experts in science and academia who raise serious misgivings, why do you pretend its only poorly educated Christians?

Pretty much every one I meet who strongly accepts Darwinism as a truth have no awareness of the many serious problems the theory faces, this selective filtering of scientific facts to only those supporting one's view is not scientific and shows just how ignorant many Darwinists are about real science.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 3:33:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 7:08:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case.
Scientists have an extensive array of best-practice tools to study any human behaviour, including the behaviour of scientists.

While discussion of science as a sociological behaviour is both legitimate and fascinating, failure to use the best tools available represents either laziness or intellectual dishonesty, which in this case is understandable, since the site you quoted is driven by an ideological and political agenda.

So my request: when seeking to discuss behaviours of scientists, LBoH, please cite peer-reviewed scientific research surveying how they actually behave, and avoid sites where cherry-picked talking heads launch opinionated polemics salted with decontextualised quotes for the consumption of ignorant audiences who have never personally met a scientist or worked in the sciences themselves.

I think it would make any subsequent discussion better informed and far more constructive than the one you've created in this thread.

Thanks.

Where is the evidence that only peer reviewed publications can be trusted and always trusted? Surely a truth, a fact can be so irrespective of whether its been accepted by some authority or other?

Self education includes an ability to rationally make up one's own mind and trust one's own intellect in addition to respectfully considering peer reviewed publications.

No honest seeker after truth should entrust some scientific cadre as all knowing and infallible, we're all ultimately accountable for deciding what we believe and don't believe.

Harry.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 3:45:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 3:20:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:53:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Look. The ID researchers can write whatever they like. The papers will face the rigors of peer-review. Just crying "unfair" is just silly. Do you want to force non-ID scientist to accept the research of ID people? Like affirmative action for scientific research?

But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?

How can one truly have confidence in a system which to all intents and purpose describes a hypothetical process as "fact" when discussing science? Any truly honest seeker after truth should be alarmed at such language but they don't appear to care just like many in these forums.

Claiming a hypothetical process is an irrefutable established fact is itself the epitome of non-scientific, this fact alone should be enough to treat the "peer review process" with suspicion when it comes to claims about life and evolution.

Harry.

You make it sound like scientists are just saying "nope, WRONG!!!". That is what the internet does, not the peer review process.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 3:54:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 3:45:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:20:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:53:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Look. The ID researchers can write whatever they like. The papers will face the rigors of peer-review. Just crying "unfair" is just silly. Do you want to force non-ID scientist to accept the research of ID people? Like affirmative action for scientific research?

But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?

How can one truly have confidence in a system which to all intents and purpose describes a hypothetical process as "fact" when discussing science? Any truly honest seeker after truth should be alarmed at such language but they don't appear to care just like many in these forums.

Claiming a hypothetical process is an irrefutable established fact is itself the epitome of non-scientific, this fact alone should be enough to treat the "peer review process" with suspicion when it comes to claims about life and evolution.

Harry.

You make it sound like scientists are just saying "nope, WRONG!!!". That is what the internet does, not the peer review process.

So how can you prove that the peer review process when applied to evolution is trustworthy and free from prejudice? If the process cannot be shown to be objective and reliable then why should one rely upon it?

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 4:11:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 3:54:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:45:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:20:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:53:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Look. The ID researchers can write whatever they like. The papers will face the rigors of peer-review. Just crying "unfair" is just silly. Do you want to force non-ID scientist to accept the research of ID people? Like affirmative action for scientific research?

But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?

How can one truly have confidence in a system which to all intents and purpose describes a hypothetical process as "fact" when discussing science? Any truly honest seeker after truth should be alarmed at such language but they don't appear to care just like many in these forums.

Claiming a hypothetical process is an irrefutable established fact is itself the epitome of non-scientific, this fact alone should be enough to treat the "peer review process" with suspicion when it comes to claims about life and evolution.

Harry.

You make it sound like scientists are just saying "nope, WRONG!!!". That is what the internet does, not the peer review process.

So how can you prove that the peer review process when applied to evolution is trustworthy and free from prejudice? If the process cannot be shown to be objective and reliable then why should one rely upon it?

Harry.

Wow Harry, you've come up with some really ignorant posts about science, but that one is truly remarkable. You actually question one particular branch of science in regards to the peer review process, suspiciously coincidental that it is the denial of evolution, or do you question the peer review process entirely, Harry?

What is it this time Harry, your misunderstanding of science and how it works?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 5:52:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 4:11:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:54:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:45:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:20:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:53:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Look. The ID researchers can write whatever they like. The papers will face the rigors of peer-review. Just crying "unfair" is just silly. Do you want to force non-ID scientist to accept the research of ID people? Like affirmative action for scientific research?

But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?

How can one truly have confidence in a system which to all intents and purpose describes a hypothetical process as "fact" when discussing science? Any truly honest seeker after truth should be alarmed at such language but they don't appear to care just like many in these forums.

Claiming a hypothetical process is an irrefutable established fact is itself the epitome of non-scientific, this fact alone should be enough to treat the "peer review process" with suspicion when it comes to claims about life and evolution.

Harry.

You make it sound like scientists are just saying "nope, WRONG!!!". That is what the internet does, not the peer review process.

So how can you prove that the peer review process when applied to evolution is trustworthy and free from prejudice? If the process cannot be shown to be objective and reliable then why should one rely upon it?

Harry.

Wow Harry, you've come up with some really ignorant posts about science, but that one is truly remarkable. You actually question one particular branch of science in regards to the peer review process, suspiciously coincidental that it is the denial of evolution, or do you question the peer review process entirely, Harry?

What is it this time Harry, your misunderstanding of science and how it works?

I have no trouble with peer review and - say - mathematics because it's highly objective and relies wholly on unambiguous logic.

But with other subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present.

I'd like to ask you a couple of questions at this point but we both know you'll duck and dive and never answer, as is your custom.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 7:27:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 5:52:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 4:11:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:54:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:45:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:20:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:53:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Look. The ID researchers can write whatever they like. The papers will face the rigors of peer-review. Just crying "unfair" is just silly. Do you want to force non-ID scientist to accept the research of ID people? Like affirmative action for scientific research?

But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?

How can one truly have confidence in a system which to all intents and purpose describes a hypothetical process as "fact" when discussing science? Any truly honest seeker after truth should be alarmed at such language but they don't appear to care just like many in these forums.

Claiming a hypothetical process is an irrefutable established fact is itself the epitome of non-scientific, this fact alone should be enough to treat the "peer review process" with suspicion when it comes to claims about life and evolution.

Harry.

You make it sound like scientists are just saying "nope, WRONG!!!". That is what the internet does, not the peer review process.

So how can you prove that the peer review process when applied to evolution is trustworthy and free from prejudice? If the process cannot be shown to be objective and reliable then why should one rely upon it?

Harry.

Wow Harry, you've come up with some really ignorant posts about science, but that one is truly remarkable. You actually question one particular branch of science in regards to the peer review process, suspiciously coincidental that it is the denial of evolution, or do you question the peer review process entirely, Harry?

What is it this time Harry, your misunderstanding of science and how it works?

I have no trouble with peer review and - say - mathematics because it's highly objective and relies wholly on unambiguous logic.

But with other subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present.

Really, show us some peer-review papers that fulfill your accusations? I mean, you should be able to find plenty as you say, "personal prejudices are always present"

I'd like to ask you a couple of questions at this point but we both know you'll duck and dive and never answer, as is your custom.

What? More irrelevant loaded questions? Why Harry, is it such that you wish to question me rather than dealing with your extraordinary claims about the peer review process? What could I possibly answer that would agree with your irrational assertions?

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 7:37:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 7:27:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 5:52:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 4:11:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:54:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:45:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:20:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:53:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Look. The ID researchers can write whatever they like. The papers will face the rigors of peer-review. Just crying "unfair" is just silly. Do you want to force non-ID scientist to accept the research of ID people? Like affirmative action for scientific research?

But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?

How can one truly have confidence in a system which to all intents and purpose describes a hypothetical process as "fact" when discussing science? Any truly honest seeker after truth should be alarmed at such language but they don't appear to care just like many in these forums.

Claiming a hypothetical process is an irrefutable established fact is itself the epitome of non-scientific, this fact alone should be enough to treat the "peer review process" with suspicion when it comes to claims about life and evolution.

Harry.

You make it sound like scientists are just saying "nope, WRONG!!!". That is what the internet does, not the peer review process.

So how can you prove that the peer review process when applied to evolution is trustworthy and free from prejudice? If the process cannot be shown to be objective and reliable then why should one rely upon it?

Harry.

Wow Harry, you've come up with some really ignorant posts about science, but that one is truly remarkable. You actually question one particular branch of science in regards to the peer review process, suspiciously coincidental that it is the denial of evolution, or do you question the peer review process entirely, Harry?

What is it this time Harry, your misunderstanding of science and how it works?

I have no trouble with peer review and - say - mathematics because it's highly objective and relies wholly on unambiguous logic.

But with other subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present.

Really, show us some peer-review papers that fulfill your accusations? I mean, you should be able to find plenty as you say, "personal prejudices are always present"


Show me a peer reviewed paper that shows the opposite, can you?

I'd like to ask you a couple of questions at this point but we both know you'll duck and dive and never answer, as is your custom.

What? More irrelevant loaded questions? Why Harry, is it such that you wish to question me rather than dealing with your extraordinary claims about the peer review process? What could I possibly answer that would agree with your irrational assertions?

What claim struck you as "extraordinary"? you're lying again?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 7:46:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 7:37:07 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 7:27:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 5:52:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 4:11:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:54:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:45:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:20:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:53:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Look. The ID researchers can write whatever they like. The papers will face the rigors of peer-review. Just crying "unfair" is just silly. Do you want to force non-ID scientist to accept the research of ID people? Like affirmative action for scientific research?

But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?

How can one truly have confidence in a system which to all intents and purpose describes a hypothetical process as "fact" when discussing science? Any truly honest seeker after truth should be alarmed at such language but they don't appear to care just like many in these forums.

Claiming a hypothetical process is an irrefutable established fact is itself the epitome of non-scientific, this fact alone should be enough to treat the "peer review process" with suspicion when it comes to claims about life and evolution.

Harry.

You make it sound like scientists are just saying "nope, WRONG!!!". That is what the internet does, not the peer review process.

So how can you prove that the peer review process when applied to evolution is trustworthy and free from prejudice? If the process cannot be shown to be objective and reliable then why should one rely upon it?

Harry.

Wow Harry, you've come up with some really ignorant posts about science, but that one is truly remarkable. You actually question one particular branch of science in regards to the peer review process, suspiciously coincidental that it is the denial of evolution, or do you question the peer review process entirely, Harry?

What is it this time Harry, your misunderstanding of science and how it works?

I have no trouble with peer review and - say - mathematics because it's highly objective and relies wholly on unambiguous logic.

But with other subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present.

Really, show us some peer-review papers that fulfill your accusations? I mean, you should be able to find plenty as you say, "personal prejudices are always present"


Show me a peer reviewed paper that shows the opposite, can you?

LOL. As childish a response as ever, Harry. Sorry, doesn't work that way, you actually need to support your claims, you made them, it's you who has to eat them for crow.

I'd like to ask you a couple of questions at this point but we both know you'll duck and dive and never answer, as is your custom.

What? More irrelevant loaded questions? Why Harry, is it such that you wish to question me rather than dealing with your extraordinary claims about the peer review process? What could I possibly answer that would agree with your irrational assertions?

What claim struck you as "extraordinary"? you're lying again?

I underlined it for you Harry. Don't play naive or coy.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 1:03:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 7:46:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 7:37:07 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 7:27:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 5:52:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 4:11:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:54:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:45:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:20:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:53:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Look. The ID researchers can write whatever they like. The papers will face the rigors of peer-review. Just crying "unfair" is just silly. Do you want to force non-ID scientist to accept the research of ID people? Like affirmative action for scientific research?

But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?

How can one truly have confidence in a system which to all intents and purpose describes a hypothetical process as "fact" when discussing science? Any truly honest seeker after truth should be alarmed at such language but they don't appear to care just like many in these forums.

Claiming a hypothetical process is an irrefutable established fact is itself the epitome of non-scientific, this fact alone should be enough to treat the "peer review process" with suspicion when it comes to claims about life and evolution.

Harry.

You make it sound like scientists are just saying "nope, WRONG!!!". That is what the internet does, not the peer review process.

So how can you prove that the peer review process when applied to evolution is trustworthy and free from prejudice? If the process cannot be shown to be objective and reliable then why should one rely upon it?

Harry.

Wow Harry, you've come up with some really ignorant posts about science, but that one is truly remarkable. You actually question one particular branch of science in regards to the peer review process, suspiciously coincidental that it is the denial of evolution, or do you question the peer review process entirely, Harry?

What is it this time Harry, your misunderstanding of science and how it works?

I have no trouble with peer review and - say - mathematics because it's highly objective and relies wholly on unambiguous logic.

But with other subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present.

Really, show us some peer-review papers that fulfill your accusations? I mean, you should be able to find plenty as you say, "personal prejudices are always present"


Show me a peer reviewed paper that shows the opposite, can you?

LOL. As childish a response as ever, Harry. Sorry, doesn't work that way, you actually need to support your claims, you made them, it's you who has to eat them for crow.

How idiotic are you man? I ask for evidence that the peer review process is trustworthy - you respond (vacuously as is often the case) not with an answer - oh no; that's always hard for you I know - but with a request for - wait for it - a peer reviewed paper supporting my case!

I then - rhetorically (look it up) throw that stupidity back at you yet it goes right over your head!

I don't need to do as you suggest, all I need to do is raise some objection to some dogma and if you nor anyone else can show where I'm in error then I rest my case, as I do here.

Once again - So how can you prove that the peer review process when applied to evolution is trustworthy and free from prejudice?

Can you show that it is or do you demand that we simply assume you're right?

If the peer review process with respect to evolutionary ideas is trustworthy then surely this is readily proven or do you ask that I simply trust that it is so?

Only a true Dumbell would try to suggest that we use the peer review process to prove that we can trust the peer review process, such is the appalling state of education and obsession with pop-science these days.

I know you're not used to being made a fool of, but you'll get used to it I'm sure, in the meantime go back to practicing foreign languages and leave intellectual matters to those with an IQ > 10.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 3:22:56 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 1:03:27 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 7:46:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 7:37:07 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 7:27:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 5:52:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 4:11:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:54:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:45:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:20:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:53:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Look. The ID researchers can write whatever they like. The papers will face the rigors of peer-review. Just crying "unfair" is just silly. Do you want to force non-ID scientist to accept the research of ID people? Like affirmative action for scientific research?

But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?

How can one truly have confidence in a system which to all intents and purpose describes a hypothetical process as "fact" when discussing science? Any truly honest seeker after truth should be alarmed at such language but they don't appear to care just like many in these forums.

Claiming a hypothetical process is an irrefutable established fact is itself the epitome of non-scientific, this fact alone should be enough to treat the "peer review process" with suspicion when it comes to claims about life and evolution.

Harry.

You make it sound like scientists are just saying "nope, WRONG!!!". That is what the internet does, not the peer review process.

So how can you prove that the peer review process when applied to evolution is trustworthy and free from prejudice? If the process cannot be shown to be objective and reliable then why should one rely upon it?

Harry.

Wow Harry, you've come up with some really ignorant posts about science, but that one is truly remarkable. You actually question one particular branch of science in regards to the peer review process, suspiciously coincidental that it is the denial of evolution, or do you question the peer review process entirely, Harry?

What is it this time Harry, your misunderstanding of science and how it works?

I have no trouble with peer review and - say - mathematics because it's highly objective and relies wholly on unambiguous logic.

But with other subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present.

Really, show us some peer-review papers that fulfill your accusations? I mean, you should be able to find plenty as you say, "personal prejudices are always present"


Show me a peer reviewed paper that shows the opposite, can you?

LOL. As childish a response as ever, Harry. Sorry, doesn't work that way, you actually need to support your claims, you made them, it's you who has to eat them for crow.

How idiotic are you man? I ask for evidence that the peer review process is trustworthy - you respond (vacuously as is often the case) not with an answer - oh no; that's always hard for you I know - but with a request for - wait for it - a peer reviewed paper supporting my case!

I then - rhetorically (look it up) throw that stupidity back at you yet it goes right over your head!

I don't need to do as you suggest, all I need to do is raise some objection to some dogma and if you nor anyone else can show where I'm in error then I rest my case, as I do here.

Once again - So how can you prove that the peer review process when applied to evolution is trustworthy and free from prejudice?

Can you show that it is or do you demand that we simply assume you're right?

If the peer review process with respect to evolutionary ideas is trustworthy then surely this is readily proven or do you ask that I simply trust that it is so?

Only a true Dumbell would try to suggest that we use the peer review process to prove that we can trust the peer review process, such is the appalling state of education and obsession with pop-science these days.

I know you're not used to being made a fool of, but you'll get used to it I'm sure, in the meantime go back to practicing foreign languages and leave intellectual matters to those with an IQ > 10.

Harry.

First and foremost, Harry once again needs a reminder of his hypocritical words to me:

"Here you go again - the descent into insulting anyone who dares to disagree with you, how predictable you're becoming. -Dirty Harry."

Next, we'll bring Harry's claims to the forefront as he has also forgotten them, such a short memory poor Harry has to deal with...

" subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present."

This is the claim Harry made, there was no compulsion or preliminary setup, Harry just came right out and made the claim. But now, Harry wants me to prove his claim is false rather than he prove that it's valid. This is called, as everyone knows except Harry, Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy.

Okay Harry, back over to you, let's see if you can support your claim and accept your burden of proof.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 3:14:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 3:22:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/20/2016 1:03:27 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 7:46:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 7:37:07 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 7:27:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 5:52:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 4:11:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:54:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:45:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:20:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:53:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/18/2016 6:26:34 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Most people who think of scientists picture learned men and woman in the search for truth. As this article demonstrates, this is not the case. Dissent is not welcome, and the guilty ones are labeled mavericks and worse, and persecuted simply for disagreeing with the establishment. This is especially true in any department involved in research of origins or evolution. So anything the scientific establishment tells us should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Look. The ID researchers can write whatever they like. The papers will face the rigors of peer-review. Just crying "unfair" is just silly. Do you want to force non-ID scientist to accept the research of ID people? Like affirmative action for scientific research?

But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?

How can one truly have confidence in a system which to all intents and purpose describes a hypothetical process as "fact" when discussing science? Any truly honest seeker after truth should be alarmed at such language but they don't appear to care just like many in these forums.

Claiming a hypothetical process is an irrefutable established fact is itself the epitome of non-scientific, this fact alone should be enough to treat the "peer review process" with suspicion when it comes to claims about life and evolution.

Harry.

You make it sound like scientists are just saying "nope, WRONG!!!". That is what the internet does, not the peer review process.

So how can you prove that the peer review process when applied to evolution is trustworthy and free from prejudice? If the process cannot be shown to be objective and reliable then why should one rely upon it?

Harry.

Wow Harry, you've come up with some really ignorant posts about science, but that one is truly remarkable. You actually question one particular branch of science in regards to the peer review process, suspiciously coincidental that it is the denial of evolution, or do you question the peer review process entirely, Harry?

What is it this time Harry, your misunderstanding of science and how it works?

I have no trouble with peer review and - say - mathematics because it's highly objective and relies wholly on unambiguous logic.

But with other subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present.

Really, show us some peer-review papers that fulfill your accusations? I mean, you should be able to find plenty as you say, "personal prejudices are always present"


Show me a peer reviewed paper that shows the opposite, can you?

LOL. As childish a response as ever, Harry. Sorry, doesn't work that way, you actually need to support your claims, you made them, it's you who has to eat them for crow.

How idiotic are you man? I ask for evidence that the peer review process is trustworthy - you respond (vacuously as is often the case) not with an answer - oh no; that's always hard for you I know - but with a request for - wait for it - a peer reviewed paper supporting my case!

I then - rhetorically (look it up) throw that stupidity back at you yet it goes right over your head!

I don't need to do as you suggest, all I need to do is raise some objection to some dogma and if you nor anyone else can show where I'm in error then I rest my case, as I do here.

Once again - So how can you prove that the peer review process when applied to evolution is trustworthy and free from prejudice?

Can you show that it is or do you demand that we simply assume you're right?

If the peer review process with respect to evolutionary ideas is trustworthy then surely this is readily proven or do you ask that I simply trust that it is so?

Only a true Dumbell would try to suggest that we use the peer review process to prove that we can trust the peer review process, such is the appalling state of education and obsession with pop-science these days.

I know you're not used to being made a fool of, but you'll get used to it I'm sure, in the meantime go back to practicing foreign languages and leave intellectual matters to those with an IQ > 10.

Harry.

First and foremost, Harry once again needs a reminder of his hypocritical words to me:

"Here you go again - the descent into insulting anyone who dares to disagree with you, how predictable you're becoming. -Dirty Harry."


You started it dumbass, and if you're going to repeatedly insult me (by claiming I don't understand science, by bringing the Bible into any and every post to distract from the issues etc) then you can expect to get what you give.

Next, we'll bring Harry's claims to the forefront as he has also forgotten them, such a short memory poor Harry has to deal with...

" subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present."

This is the claim Harry made, there was no compulsion or preliminary setup, Harry just came right out and made the claim. But now, Harry wants me to prove his claim is false rather than he prove that it's valid. This is called, as everyone knows except Harry, Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy.


Dumbass I don't care what you say or think anymore, I have no desire to attempt to engage in serious discussion with you, whine and whinge and pat yourself on the back as much as you like.

Okay Harry, back over to you, let's see if you can support your claim and accept your burden of proof.

No back over to you dummy because you never answered the question asked in my first post in this thread - see POST # 16:

"But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?"

So back over to you, my first post in this thread asked those question yet in your response POST # 20 you avoided answering these, preferring to distract and procrastinate and ask your own questions then you have the audacity to accuse me of not answering YOUR questions!!

Your always unable to answer probing, direct questions, always uses tactics to distract and evade and accuse your opponents of wrong doing.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 3:36:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 3:14:06 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/20/2016 3:22:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

First and foremost, Harry once again needs a reminder of his hypocritical words to me:

"Here you go again - the descent into insulting anyone who dares to disagree with you, how predictable you're becoming. -Dirty Harry."


You started it dumbass, and if you're going to repeatedly insult me (by claiming I don't understand science, by bringing the Bible into any and every post to distract from the issues etc) then you can expect to get what you give.

Harry, me telling you that you don't understand science is not the same as you name calling. But, if childish name calling is the best you can muster in light of understanding science, so be it.

Next, we'll bring Harry's claims to the forefront as he has also forgotten them, such a short memory poor Harry has to deal with...

" subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present."

This is the claim Harry made, there was no compulsion or preliminary setup, Harry just came right out and made the claim. But now, Harry wants me to prove his claim is false rather than he prove that it's valid. This is called, as everyone knows except Harry, Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy.


Dumbass I don't care what you say or think anymore, I have no desire to attempt to engage in serious discussion with you, whine and whinge and pat yourself on the back as much as you like.

No problem, Harry, we are getting used to you making ridiculous nonsensical claims all the time with you not being able to support any of them, with you usually reverting back to name calling.

Okay Harry, back over to you, let's see if you can support your claim and accept your burden of proof.

No back over to you dummy because you never answered the question asked in my first post in this thread - see POST # 16:

Sorry Harry, you have been called out on your claim, the floor is yours to support it.

"But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?"

So back over to you, my first post in this thread asked those question yet in your response POST # 20 you avoided answering these, preferring to distract and procrastinate and ask your own questions then you have the audacity to accuse me of not answering YOUR questions!!

Your always unable to answer probing, direct questions, always uses tactics to distract and evade and accuse your opponents of wrong doing.

Notice Harry is forced to lie about his claims whenever he gets exposed for making them and is compelled to project his shortcomings onto others. Very sad, Harry.

So, can we conclude that the claim YOU made here:

" subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present."

... was merely you blowing smoke out of your a$$?

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 3:40:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 3:36:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/20/2016 3:14:06 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/20/2016 3:22:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

First and foremost, Harry once again needs a reminder of his hypocritical words to me:

"Here you go again - the descent into insulting anyone who dares to disagree with you, how predictable you're becoming. -Dirty Harry."


You started it dumbass, and if you're going to repeatedly insult me (by claiming I don't understand science, by bringing the Bible into any and every post to distract from the issues etc) then you can expect to get what you give.

Harry, me telling you that you don't understand science is not the same as you name calling. But, if childish name calling is the best you can muster in light of understanding science, so be it.

Next, we'll bring Harry's claims to the forefront as he has also forgotten them, such a short memory poor Harry has to deal with...

" subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present."

This is the claim Harry made, there was no compulsion or preliminary setup, Harry just came right out and made the claim. But now, Harry wants me to prove his claim is false rather than he prove that it's valid. This is called, as everyone knows except Harry, Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy.


Dumbass I don't care what you say or think anymore, I have no desire to attempt to engage in serious discussion with you, whine and whinge and pat yourself on the back as much as you like.

No problem, Harry, we are getting used to you making ridiculous nonsensical claims all the time with you not being able to support any of them, with you usually reverting back to name calling.

Okay Harry, back over to you, let's see if you can support your claim and accept your burden of proof.

No back over to you dummy because you never answered the question asked in my first post in this thread - see POST # 16:

Sorry Harry, you have been called out on your claim, the floor is yours to support it.

"But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?"

So back over to you, my first post in this thread asked those question yet in your response POST # 20 you avoided answering these, preferring to distract and procrastinate and ask your own questions then you have the audacity to accuse me of not answering YOUR questions!!

Your always unable to answer probing, direct questions, always uses tactics to distract and evade and accuse your opponents of wrong doing.

Notice Harry is forced to lie about his claims whenever he gets exposed for making them and is compelled to project his shortcomings onto others. Very sad, Harry.

So, can we conclude that the claim YOU made here:

" subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present."


... was merely you blowing smoke out of your a$$?

Harry.

Dumbell, you have every right to ask for supporting data for my claim "subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present" and I do not object to being asked for this.

However why do you not proceed in an orderly manner? Why is your request for evidence to be given greater priority than mine when mine was asked before yours?

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 4:08:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 3:40:14 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/20/2016 3:36:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/20/2016 3:14:06 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/20/2016 3:22:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

First and foremost, Harry once again needs a reminder of his hypocritical words to me:

"Here you go again - the descent into insulting anyone who dares to disagree with you, how predictable you're becoming. -Dirty Harry."


You started it dumbass, and if you're going to repeatedly insult me (by claiming I don't understand science, by bringing the Bible into any and every post to distract from the issues etc) then you can expect to get what you give.

Harry, me telling you that you don't understand science is not the same as you name calling. But, if childish name calling is the best you can muster in light of understanding science, so be it.

Next, we'll bring Harry's claims to the forefront as he has also forgotten them, such a short memory poor Harry has to deal with...

" subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present."

This is the claim Harry made, there was no compulsion or preliminary setup, Harry just came right out and made the claim. But now, Harry wants me to prove his claim is false rather than he prove that it's valid. This is called, as everyone knows except Harry, Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy.


Dumbass I don't care what you say or think anymore, I have no desire to attempt to engage in serious discussion with you, whine and whinge and pat yourself on the back as much as you like.

No problem, Harry, we are getting used to you making ridiculous nonsensical claims all the time with you not being able to support any of them, with you usually reverting back to name calling.

Okay Harry, back over to you, let's see if you can support your claim and accept your burden of proof.

No back over to you dummy because you never answered the question asked in my first post in this thread - see POST # 16:

Sorry Harry, you have been called out on your claim, the floor is yours to support it.

"But just how trustworthy is the peer review process? By definition it assumes one's peers are honest and objective and without prejudice but how is that assured?"

So back over to you, my first post in this thread asked those question yet in your response POST # 20 you avoided answering these, preferring to distract and procrastinate and ask your own questions then you have the audacity to accuse me of not answering YOUR questions!!

Your always unable to answer probing, direct questions, always uses tactics to distract and evade and accuse your opponents of wrong doing.

Notice Harry is forced to lie about his claims whenever he gets exposed for making them and is compelled to project his shortcomings onto others. Very sad, Harry.

So, can we conclude that the claim YOU made here:

" subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present."


... was merely you blowing smoke out of your a$$?

Harry.

Dumbell, you have every right to ask for supporting data for my claim "subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present" and I do not object to being asked for this.

However why do you not proceed in an orderly manner? Why is your request for evidence to be given greater priority than mine when mine was asked before yours?

Once again, Harry, here is your claim:

" subjects like history, archaeology or evolution things are very very different because ambiguity, bias and personal prejudices are always present."

Will you be supporting that claim with evidence or will you be admitting the smoke from your a$$ has once again donned these forums?

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth