ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I have been both, at the same time!
I am neither now. I no longer claim to be an expert in the field in which I used to operate as I have not kept up with recent trends, for many years.
And I no longer drink.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!
- Thread starter Ktoyou
- Start date
I am neither now. I no longer claim to be an expert in the field in which I used to operate as I have not kept up with recent trends, for many years.
And I no longer drink.
Duh.
A scientist is a person who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest.
In other words, anyone can be a scientist by simply doing research to advance knowledge in an area of interest. That includes the drunk, above. Who are you to discount his knowledge, simply because he likes alcohol?
This is why it's a genetic fallacy.
And if the drunk, or perhaps the pastor/talkshow host, is right and the "expert" is wrong, and that trend continues, then we should doubt what the "expert" says and pay more attention to the former. If it's the other way around, then sure, we can discount the former, and pay more attention to the latter, based on the evidence.
The problem is that you want to skip looking at the evidence and only focus on what the "expert" says, because he's an "expert." That is, by definition, a genetic fallacy, and not only that, but it's also an appeal to authority. First, you must examine what the person says, and if it is true, or if it false, act accordingly. Skipping that step only results in confirmation bias.
Irrelevant.
You cannot make that decision until you have examined all aspects of any given claim, by any claimant. That includes that of a drunk, or of a pastor.
And if the drunk is right, and the "expert" is wrong, what then? How would you know, when you only listen to the "expert?"
Saying it doesn't make it so, and the fact that it's "messy" should tell you why.
So what? That doesn't mean we have to rely on experts to tell us what to believe.
I came across some advice recently when watching a youtube video on something in the tech industry, and as someone who is somewhat of a tech enthusiast myself, who had experienced something similar, it made a lot of sense. The person who said it said something along the lines of, "if you're doing research into something, and you don't understand even half the terms being used, just pay attention to the context they're being used in, and keep researching, because the next time you come across those terms, they'll make more sense to you."
In other words, just because you don't understand something, if you're immersing yourself in that knowledge regularly, you'll quickly become familiar with those terms, even if you don't know how those things work exactly, which will help you learn other things related to those terms.
Yes, that's my point. You are the first one to bring it up. No one else has mentioned it, has needed to.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Skeeter, you're literally defending the use of a genetic fallacy, that makes you wrong, ipso facto.
"The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself." - Wikipedia entry for Genetic Fallacy
Those limitations include being unable to determine whether a claim is true or false based on the origin of that claim. You refuse to acknowledge this limitation.
Appeal to ridicule fallacy.
Appeal to authority fallacy.
Appeal to the stone fallacy.
And if the expert is wrong, what then?
Speak for yourself.
Now you're defending appealing to authority, another fallacy.
How low can you go, Skeeter?
Are you sure about that?
Again, speak for yourself.
Peer review is not consensus, nor vice versa.
Wrong.
As per NCBI:
"Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication."
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
That only works with people who are open to evidence, and who do not discount a claim or evidence simply based on its origins.
Which still does not make it ok to reject or promote a claim or evidence over another based on its origin.
H's like UN in that his evidence is what he thinks.Duh.
A scientist is a person who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest.
In other words, anyone can be a scientist by simply doing research to advance knowledge in an area of interest. That includes the drunk, above. Who are you to discount his knowledge, simply because he likes alcohol?
This is why it's a genetic fallacy.
And if the drunk, or perhaps the pastor/talkshow host, is right and the "expert" is wrong, and that trend continues, then we should doubt what the "expert" says and pay more attention to the former. If it's the other way around, then sure, we can discount the former, and pay more attention to the latter, based on the evidence.
The problem is that you want to skip looking at the evidence and only focus on what the "expert" says, because he's an "expert." That is, by definition, a genetic fallacy, and not only that, but it's also an appeal to authority. First, you must examine what the person says, and if it is true, or if it false, act accordingly. Skipping that step only results in confirmation bias.
Irrelevant.
You cannot make that decision until you have examined all aspects of any given claim, by any claimant. That includes that of a drunk, or of a pastor.
And if the drunk is right, and the "expert" is wrong, what then? How would you know, when you only listen to the "expert?"
Saying it doesn't make it so, and the fact that it's "messy" should tell you why.
So what? That doesn't mean we have to rely on experts to tell us what to believe.
I came across some advice recently when watching a youtube video on something in the tech industry, and as someone who is somewhat of a tech enthusiast myself, who had experienced something similar, it made a lot of sense. The person who said it said something along the lines of, "if you're doing research into something, and you don't understand even half the terms being used, just pay attention to the context they're being used in, and keep researching, because the next time you come across those terms, they'll make more sense to you."
In other words, just because you don't understand something, if you're immersing yourself in that knowledge regularly, you'll quickly become familiar with those terms, even if you don't know how those things work exactly, which will help you learn other things related to those terms.
Yes, that's my point. You are the first one to bring it up. No one else has mentioned it, has needed to.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Skeeter, you're literally defending the use of a genetic fallacy, that makes you wrong, ipso facto.
"The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself." - Wikipedia entry for Genetic Fallacy
Those limitations include being unable to determine whether a claim is true or false based on the origin of that claim. You refuse to acknowledge this limitation.
Appeal to ridicule fallacy.
Appeal to authority fallacy.
Appeal to the stone fallacy.
And if the expert is wrong, what then?
Speak for yourself.
Now you're defending appealing to authority, another fallacy.
How low can you go, Skeeter?
Are you sure about that?
Again, speak for yourself.
Peer review is not consensus, nor vice versa.
Wrong.
As per NCBI:
"Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication."
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline ...
That only works with people who are open to evidence, and who do not discount a claim or evidence simply based on its origins.
Which still does not make it ok to reject or promote a claim or evidence over another based on its origin.
In a strong Foghorn Leghorn voice: Ah say son that what Ah think is right. That dawg can't get loose.
JR,
You excel at pointing at potential fallacies at the Junior College level. You are capable of more. I think its time you graduated.
Consider the Bible.
Classroom application:
The Bible says to honor your father and your mother, so it is a moral imperative to do so. An illogical appeal to authority.
versus
Real World application:
The Bible has survived centuries competing with other bibles. There is probably some valuable knowledge within. It's worth a read. A balanced qualified statement appropriately based on authority and popularity.
You excel at pointing at potential fallacies at the Junior College level. You are capable of more. I think its time you graduated.
Consider the Bible.
Classroom application:
The Bible says to honor your father and your mother, so it is a moral imperative to do so. An illogical appeal to authority.
versus
Real World application:
The Bible has survived centuries competing with other bibles. There is probably some valuable knowledge within. It's worth a read. A balanced qualified statement appropriately based on authority and popularity.
If you throw a stone at a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit.
Except A) it's not illogical, because B) the Bible was written by God, the ULTIMATE authority, and thus, there is nothing inherently wrong with appealing to God, the Authority. He, quite literally, wrote the book (pun intended) on logic.
For some reason, I'm reminded of the Philistines' god Dagon all of a sudden... I wonder why...
Rather, the evidence we have uncovered over the last few hundred years corroborates the Bible, showing it to be full of truth and wisdom, and also the means by which one can be saved from his sin.
The Bible is the world's best seller!
Your mockery of it notwithstanding.
I got in real trouble one time with a group of evolutionist democrats by pointing out that Darwin believed blacks, like Michele Obama, descended from monkeys. Darwinists are idiots. God created humans originally and all humans descended from Adam and Eve.We should pivot back to evidence and see who dodges.
There is solid evidence that Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor:
Sharing a common ancestor
Humans did not evolve from an ape - we are apes, and our closest living relatives include chimpanzees and gorillas.australian.museum
Once again you use fallacious logic. The Bible tells children to respect and honor their parents. That is solid logic built upon the parents taking care of their children, That gives them authority over their children. A slightly sarcastic way of saying the same thing is whoever has the gold makes the rules.
You're as delusional as UN.
Consensus has NOTHING to do with peer review!
You have to have known this when you wrote it!
Peer review isn't what happens when someone states a personal opinion. Peer review is when a scientist or groups of scientists replicates the work of some other scientist in order to verify what that scientist claims to be his results. It's necessary because of biases that exist in every human being. In fact, it's necessary for the exact reason why consensus IS NOT SCIENCE!
This is precisely the sort of thing that cannot happen with evolution because evolution is an unfalsifiable religion, not science. Any evidence presented that should have falsified it decades ago was only used as an excuse to move the goal post. Same sort of thing is going on with the Big Bang silliness as well as the hyper-expensive and hopeless search for dark matter and dark energy. They are all predicated on false premises and have been falsified over and over and over again. It's just what you'd expect when the government funds most of the "science" that goes on in the country. You'd get much different results if the people paying the bill had an interest in getting actual results.
Last edited:
Are you saying that it's somehow worse to point out "Junior College level" fallacies than it is to commit them?
Right Divider
Body part
I just watched that one yesterday.
It gives a whole new meaning to the term "political" science.
Peer review a specific way to build consensus. Standards of research methods are identified by consensus, and specific projects are evaluated to be sure they meet or exceed the standards. Consensus here is not reached by mere voting, but by rigorous debate and examination of evidence.
Mindreading ain't your bag.
Yes. No one said it was.
They review the procedures both scientific and statistical and confirm that they meet standards. Replication is rarely if ever a part of peer review.
Yes.
Nope.
Calling out fake concern about fallacies is pretty damaging. It may never reaches the level of damage involved in accepting a fallacy as legitimate proof but yall come close.Are you saying that it's somehow worse to point out "Junior College level" fallacies than it is to commit them?
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Team A's consensus is in claiming the proposition, P, whereas team B's consensus is in claiming the proposition, ~P (which is the contradictory of P). Being a pair of contradictories, one of those, two propositions is true, and the other is false. So, do you want to tell us, then, that team A's consensus is an "indicator" that P "might be true," and that team B's consensus is an "indicator" that P's contradictory "might be true"? By saying that each party's consensus indicates that its several proposition "might be true," you would be saying that 1) a consensus indicates that a true proposition "might be true", and that 2) a consensus indicates that a false proposition "might be true". Obviously, at the very least, #2 would be a dumb thing to be saying; wouldn't you agree?
Also, it's interesting to note that you chose to write "indicator of whether" such and such "might be true," and chose to not write, "indicator that" it "is true". Why did you do so?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
When you choose to call something "evidence," why do you choose to do so? (We note, preemptively, that it will not help you to react evasively to this question by telling us, "I call it 'evidence' because it is evidence.") What must something do in order for you to choose to call it "evidence"?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Debate between whom and whom?
What prompts you to choose to call some debate, "rigorous," while choosing to not call other debate, "rigorous"? Consensus?
This is technically true if you're limiting the use of the term "peer review" to the process that a scientific journal uses when evaluating studies to publish in their journal. To that extent, "peer review" is little more than the review an editorial board of a news paper does before publishing an article. The review is no more valid than the integrity of those on the board. It amounts to little more than the opinion of a committee and is subject to the same biases that any other committee of like minded individuals would be.
For example if you form a committee to help make decisions about how to translate the bible, the decisions will be different if the members are all Calvinists than if they were Open Theists. Likewise, if all the members of a peer review committee are evolutionists, the decisions coming out of that committee are going to reflect that. I'd dare say that there's no scientific journal in existence, certianly no major one, that would allow anyone who wasn't an evolutionists onto any of their peer review committees.
Science, real science, must be testable and the test results need to be verified by a third party and whether the term "peer reviewed" specifically means that this has been done or not, it is certainly what people who want you to believe in things like evolution and global warming, et al. expect the public to believe when they brand their study with the term "peer reviewed".
The bottom line is that if a theory cannot be tested, it isn't science. If it can be tested but hasn't been by more than one party then the results of the test are still in question. Anyone who disagrees is selling something (i.e. has an agenda).
Yes, peer review is a term of art that means something more specific than its face value.
Sort of. The editorial board makes it's standards known. They use best practices in the field to judge so it is not just personal discretion.
The concept you refer to is multimodal, multimethod, multiteam approach not peer review per se. You err on the notion of repeatability. A lot of research involves inference and that is okay. What needs to be repeated is the procedure and results, NOT the overarching phenomenon. You aspirations for repeatability preclude work on any process that is slower than our life span AND any subatomic issue actually.
Let's suppose the Bible is right and the majority of peer reviewers are wrong about an issue. What can we do about such a problem with peer review in that case?