Evolution of the Organelle Assembly Line

I am an engineer, I just happen to watch the video.
Are you saying that because you are an engineer you are unable to express their argument in your own words?!?

Them seem to have very good science behind what they were saying.
Oh, they are very good at that - at seeming to have good science behind. Scratch beneath the surface, and it is a different story.

Real science is presented in peer-reviewed journals. Pseudo-science that seems like good science is presented on YouTube and similar.
 
Are you saying that because you are an engineer you are unable to express their argument in your own words?!?


Oh, they are very good at that - at seeming to have good science behind. Scratch beneath the surface, and it is a different story.

Real science is presented in peer-reviewed journals. Pseudo-science that seems like good science is presented on YouTube and similar.
It has been a while since I watched the video. I don't want to misrepresent what it says. I think you would enjoy it though.
 
Identify the peer-review journals that Galileo used in presenting his findings. And Isaac Newton? Archimedes?
Yeah, you might want to look at where we are with modern science. It has kind of moved on since their time.

Even if creationism has not.

Identify the peer-review journals that Galileo used in presenting his findings. And Isaac Newton? Archimedes?
Identify their Youtube channels...
 
So he peer-reviewed himself? Guess he had no peers, eh?
Oh dear, you didn't click the link I gave, did you. Newton published his book in 1687. Other scientists read it, and Newton published a corrected edition in 1713 and a further improved version in 1726. The process of peer review wasn't as fast as it is today, nor so formally organised, but it did exist.

By avoiding knowledge you are opening yourself to making errors. Better to learn and reduce the number of errors.
 
Just tell me where I can find the early eighteenth century peer review journals.
It was a book, not a journal article.

You will find the peer reviews in the letters other scientists wrote to Newton after the first and second editions were published. Look for an edition of Newton's correspondence.
 
It was a book, not a journal article.

You will find the peer reviews in the letters other scientists wrote to Newton after the first and second editions were published. Look for an edition of Newton's correspondence.

Whoever came up with the idea that one's peers are the best as well as the most objective evaluators of one's beliefs? If only Hitler had submitted Mein Kampf to Himmler before publishing it, it might be a better version, huh?
 
Whoever came up with the idea that one's peers are the best as well as the most objective evaluators of one's beliefs? If only Hitler had submitted Mein Kampf to Himmler before publishing it, it might be a better version, huh?
So sorry; you lose. See Godwin's Law.
 
Whoever came up with the idea that one's peers are the best as well as the most objective evaluators of one's beliefs?
...
I think peer-review - that is review by people who are knowledgeable in that area - is the best way.

Do you think it would work better if there was no review and anyone could publish whatever nonsense they want? Or perhaps we should it reviewed, but not by people who are experts in field?

Or just go down the road so well trodden by religion, where everyone just declares their opinions are are facts...
 
Do you think it would work better if there was no review and anyone could publish whatever nonsense they want?

Here in America we already CAN do that. It's called "freedom of the press" and is encoded in our Constitution. We fought a war with you guys over stuff like that.

Or perhaps we should it reviewed, but not by people who are experts in field?

Grown men can review it, i.e READ it for themselves and make up their own minds without relying on unelected self-designated, self-serving "experts," aka peers.

Or just go down the road so well trodden by religion, where everyone just declares their opinions are are facts...

So religious beliefs are mere opinions, but your secular beliefs are facts, right? Did you get your "God tortures" opinion reviewed by your peers?
 
Here in America we already CAN do that. It's called "freedom of the press" and is encoded in our Constitution. We fought a war with you guys over stuff like that.
Sure, and that is great.

But we are talking about science, stiggy, and the process for determining what gets published in scientific journals. Do please try to keep up.

Grown men can review it, i.e READ it for themselves and make up their own minds without relying on unelected self-designated, self-serving "experts," aka peers.
So you think Nature should just ask random people on the street if they think an article on quantum mechanics is worthy of publication?

Me, I think they are better off asking people who know about quantum mechanics.
 
Sure, and that is great.

But we are talking about science, stiggy,

Here in the USA, the First Amendment does not exempt publications about science from protection.

So you think Nature should just ask random people on the street if they think an article on quantum mechanics is worthy of publication?

No. Why do you ask? Do YOU think it should?

Me, I think they are better off asking people who know about quantum mechanics.

Me too. So whatever gave you the harebrained idea that they shouldn't?

Who's in charge of determining which people are genuine peers? Is there an official Board of Peers?
 
Here in the USA, the First Amendment does not exempt publications about science from protection.
Nonsense. The publisher can stop anything they like going into what they publish. The First Amendment allows the publisher to publish what he want, it does not allow anyone to force their nonsense into the publications.

Do you recall MrID? He had some crackpot ideas and wrote a long article he wanted to publish in Nature. Despite the First Amendment, he was not able to. The First Amendment means he could publish his nonsense in his own journal, or on his own website or shout about it in the streets. It does not mean has the right to insist Nature publishes it.

This is not just science. If you write an article about politics, you cannot force a newspaper to include it. If you write a novel, you cannot force a book publishers to publish your stupid novel.

Got to be honest, this feels like something a kid would realise.

I earlier said:
So you think Nature should just ask random people on the street if they think an article on quantum mechanics is worthy of publication?
No. Why do you ask? Do YOU think it should?
I ask because that is the topic we are discussing.

Me too. So whatever gave you the harebrained idea that they shouldn't?
Well I agree it is harebrained. I got it from you.

rossum: It was a book, not a journal article.
You will find the peer reviews in the letters other scientists wrote to Newton after the first and second editions were published. Look for an edition of Newton's correspondence.


stiggy, post '92: Whoever came up with the idea that one's peers are the best as well as the most objective evaluators of one's beliefs? If only Hitler had submitted Mein Kampf to Himmler before publishing it, it might be a better version, huh?

Back in post #92, you were clearly arguing against peer-review in science. I see you are now furiously backtracking from that nonsense, so I guess we are done here, bar the posturing.
 
Nonsense. The publisher can stop anything they like going into what they publish.

"Nonsense?" Who said they couldn't? Are you so dumb that you think the freedom to publish means the necessity to publish?

Do you recall MrID? He had some crackpot ideas and wrote a long article he wanted to publish in Nature. Despite the First Amendment, he was not able to.

Correct. The First Amendment gives publishers the right to publish anything they please. It does NOT give them the obligation to publish anything someone wants them to publish. Did you just now discover that?


This is not just science. If you write an article about politics, you cannot force a newspaper to include it.

Exactly! I repeat:

The First Amendment gives publishers the right to publish anything they please. It does NOT give them the obligation to publish anything someone wants them to publish.

Is this something you just learned?

Well I agree it is harebrained.

Good. We both agree you had a harebrained idea.

rossum: It was a book, not a journal article.
You will find the peer reviews in the letters other scientists wrote to Newton after the first and second editions were published. Look for an edition of Newton's correspondence.


stiggy, post '92: Whoever came up with the idea that one's peers are the best as well as the most objective evaluators of one's beliefs? If only Hitler had submitted Mein Kampf to Himmler before publishing it, it might be a better version, huh?

Yep. Thanks.

Back in post #92, you were clearly arguing against peer-review in science.

Nope. Just pointing out the self-serving nature of it. I particularly liked my Hitler question. I see no one addressed it.
 
Back
Top