Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[Hyperviolet]

Except that moments after I posted informing him that was a viable option, RealCdDeal changed his requirements:


(emphasis added)

Altered terms noted.

Evasion noted.

Desperate ploy to legitimize J911S by establishing the future claim "Mark Roberts agreed to debate in its pages" noted.

Waste of time by all those including Mark who honestly attempted to meet the requirements for an open honest debate, when RealCdDeal's only apparent motivation is to use Mark Roberts' name and reputation to legitimize J991S as mentioned above, noted.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Exactly, Myriad.

It's clear that when accomodated with his required specifications, RealCdDeal changed his opinion on what he wanted rather quickly.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This point is redundant, as I have already agreed to accommodate a one-on-one debate for you both.

Chillzero, thanks for the offer, but after discovering that Mark has a paper published on a Journal it would seem that would be the logical place for any rational written debate to occur. It would be the exception here and I don't believe that is the right thing for any reasoned debate. Having to depend on when moderators are available would strain the debate and that is not desirable.

Journals are set up for this type of discourse and that is where the debate should take place.

I believe it is entirely fair to both sides for Mark to submit a crtitique to both the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and to the Journal of 911 Studies with my reply also going to both.

If he refuses this then any disinterested person has to wonder about his motives, especially in light of his egregious attacks on me.

 

[CHF]

Chillzero, thanks for the offer, but after discovering that Mark has a paper published on a Journal it would seem that would be the logical place for any rational written debate to occur. It would be the exception here and I don't believe that is the right thing for any reasoned debate.

Tony, you wrote:

If it can be guaranteed that only Mark Roberts and I are allowed to post in letter form then that could work.

It was guaranteed. Now stop moving the goal posts.

 

[CHF]

I believe it is entirely fair to both sides for Mark to submit a crtitique to both the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and to the Journal of 911 Studies with my reply also going to both.

Why would he agree to publish in your mickey mouse "journal" when the credibility of said journal is at the center of this very debate?

 

[Myriad]

Chillzero, thanks for the offer, but after discovering that Mark has a paper published on a Journal it would seem that would be the logical place for any rational written debate to occur. It would be the exception here and I don't believe that is the right thing for any reasoned debate. Having to depend on when moderators are available would strain the debate and that is not desirable.

Journals are set up for this type of discourse and that is where the debate should take place.

I believe it is entirely fair to both sides for Mark to submit a crtitique to both the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and to the Journal of 911 Studies with my reply also going to both.

If he refuses this then any disinterested person has to wonder about his motives, especially in light of his egregious attacks on me.

Realcddeal, you appear to be weaseling out of debate on a flimsy pretext that makes no logical sense.

I once had a poem published in my high school magazine, so if you wish to dispute this assertion I request that you submit your rebuttal there.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Gravy]

So long Mark.

Buh-bye! Don't let reality hit you on the way out.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Buh-bye! Don't let reality hit you on the way out.

Don't worry I do live in the real world where government officials can be criminally corrupt and cover-ups can and do exist. The real fantasists are those who insist on that never happening.

You appear to be taking the cowards way out, as it is obvious that you are afraid to enter into a legitimate one on one scientific debate with me without the help of your friends on the forum here. This is surreal and childish considering your attacks on me.

 

[Architect]

Mark, Tony...

Reading back through this thread, it seems to me that the issue at hand is not whether Mark's work has been reviewed but rather Tony's concerns regarding the accuracy of the various documents and hence whether Mark is evading debate or same.

Let's stick at Peer Review for a second. What do we really mean?

Generally speaking, "peer review" refers to the process used by publishers and editors of learned and academic journals to provide a chance for scholars in the same field to examine and critique a paper or book before it is published, to help ensure its integrity and veracity. It is, if you will, a more formal (and some would say adversarial) version of asking a colleague "what do you think of this?".

Now, as a number of others have pointed out, Mark's work is not a theory or scientific hypothesis. Rather he collates various strands of research and (depending on your viewpoint) seeks to either hold up the innacuracies to the light of day or alternatively misrepresents the sources in an attempt to ridicule them.

The parallel is not the scientific process of peer review, but rather a more journalistic model. One might draw a parallel to the work of investigative journalists (for example Pilger) or even, I suppose, Michael Moore.

I doubt if there is a single person here at JREF who whould object to more responsible, accurate and unbiased standards of journalism and debate concerning the events of 911 or indeed generally. If you have concerns, then you have a right to air them.

However these concerns have to be based on issues of accuracy. If you feel that Mark has misinterpreted or misrepresented evidence, then the solution is not "peer review" but rather for you to collate and present these errors in the same manner as Mark did. Let's have trackable sources. Let's have the accuracy and reliability of such sources assessed by the author. Mark cites his sources, and they can be readily checked by someone with the time (and patience).

The issue of the format for such a process is, I think secondary. It is certainly not a process which lends itself to the rapid fire we sometimes see here. Each party will want to go away and review the evidence before responding to individual points. We will also need a way of ensuring that the discussion remains on-topic and does not seek to avoid difficult issues.

A moderated thread seems an excellent idea to me, with all other authors - myself included - excluded and a gentleman's agreement that no-one will start huffing and puffing if a reply doesn't arrive by return. Whether the goalposts have really been moving recently or whether you have both simply mis-read the posts is incidental. Lets start a fresh sheet of paper, and let's start it now.

Are the two of you ready, willing, and able to do so?

 

[DavidJames]

...without the help of your friends on the forum here. This is surreal and childish considering your attacks on me.

What is surreal is you making the statement I bolded above despite acknowledging in the past hour that an offer was made to ensure this would not happen. Dishonest, disengenious or not enough coffee yet this morning?

 

[DGM]

Don't worry I do live in the real world where government officials can be criminally corrupt and cover-ups can and do exist. The real fantasists are those who insist on that never happening.

You appear to be taking the cowards way out, as it is obvious that you are afraid to enter into a legitimate one on one scientific debate with me without the help of your friends on the forum here. This is surreal and childish considering your attacks on me.

Why are you ignoring Chillzero's offer? It's the debate you want. Simply answer post #134 (no trouble,right) and move on.

 

[CHF]

You appear to be taking the cowards way out, as it is obvious that you are afraid to enter into a legitimate one on one scientific debate with me without the help of your friends on the forum here. This is surreal and childish considering your attacks on me.

Grow up, Tony!

You set criteria for a debate and it was fulfilled.

Public posts on a moderated JREF forum are no less legitimate than publishing in a kook journal that Steven Jones started in order to avoid peer-review.

 

[Architect]

Lads, can I respectfully suggest that we stand to one side for a second and let Mark/Tony respond to my post? Let's not muddy the waters any more.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Don't worry I do live in the real world where government officials can be criminally corrupt and cover-ups can and do exist. The real fantasists are those who insist on that never happening.

Of course, you cannot quote any of these imaginary people who "insist on that never happening", because they exist only in the crazy fantasy world in your head.

You appear to be taking the cowards way out, as it is obvious that you are afraid to enter into a legitimate one on one scientific debate with me without the help of your friends on the forum here.

You mean, like the debate chillzero offered to arrange, and you are running away from?

 

[RedIbis]

Reading back through this thread, it seems to me that the issue at hand is not whether Mark's work has been reviewed but rather Tony's concerns regarding the accuracy of the various documents and hence whether Mark is evading debate or same.

Let's stick at Peer Review for a second. What do we really mean?

Generally speaking, "peer review" refers to the process used by publishers and editors of learned and academic journals to provide a chance for scholars in the same field to examine and critique a paper or book before it is published, to help ensure its integrity and veracity. It is, if you will, a more formal (and some would say adversarial) version of asking a colleague "what do you think of this?".

Now, as a number of others have pointed out, Mark's work is not a theory or scientific hypothesis. Rather he collates various strands of research and (depending on your viewpoint) seeks to either hold up the innacuracies to the light of day or alternatively misrepresents the sources in an attempt to ridicule them.

The parallel is not the scientific process of peer review, but rather a more journalistic model. One might draw a parallel to the work of investigative journalists (for example Pilger) or even, I suppose, Michael Moore.

I doubt if there is a single person here at JREF who whould object to more responsible, accurate and unbiased standards of journalism and debate concerning the events of 911 or indeed generally. If you have concerns, then you have a right to air them.

However these concerns have to be based on issues of accuracy. If you feel that Mark has misinterpreted or misrepresented evidence, then the solution is not "peer review" but rather for you to collate and present these errors in the same manner as Mark did. Let's have trackable sources. Let's have the accuracy and reliability of such sources assessed by the author. Mark cites his sources, and they can be readily checked by someone with the time (and patience).

The issue of the format for such a process is, I think secondary. It is certainly not a process which lends itself to the rapid fire we sometimes see here. Each party will want to go away and review the evidence before responding to individual points. We will also need a way of ensuring that the discussion remains on-topic and does not seek to avoid difficult issues.

A moderated thread seems an excellent idea to me, with all other authors - myself included - excluded and a gentleman's agreement that no-one will start huffing and puffing if a reply doesn't arrive by return. Whether the goalposts have really been moving recently or whether you have both simply mis-read the posts is incidental. Lets start a fresh sheet of paper, and let's start it now.

Are the two of you ready, willing, and able to do so?

A voice of reason. Thanks for the post Architect.

If I may make a few quick points because I would love to see formal debate ensue.

1) Peer review is not limited to scientific papers. As has been pointed out by Architect and others, it can be in nearly any academic discipline.

2) Unless I'm mistaken realmcdeal simply doesn't want to try and debate on Gravy's home field. Some may disagree, but it is absolutely unnecessary for any real time debate to take place against Gravy on jref. This is his realm, he's been annointed researcher extraordinaire and he has many loyal fans here. Which leads to my next point.

3) I've criticized Gravy's Rodriguez paper, and found many unsourced claims, exaggerations, ad hominem attacks, and misrepresentations. Instead of the author addressing these claims, Gravy put me on ignore. So anyone who thinks that Gravy is reasomable enough to calmly listen and respond to criticims of his work hasn't read these exchanges.

4) Gravy makes scientific claims in his papers and they should be open to peer review. He is a proponent of the slow moving, deep penetrating, time lapse exploding, magic jet fuel theory and he uses it to correct Rodriguez's account.

Excuse the long post, but I honestly think we'd all be better researchers if we could establish the parameters for calm, respectful, formal debate.

 

[WildCat]

Mark Roberts is the one who cast aspersions on my work,

Don't be shy Tony! I'm sure many others have also cast aspersions on your lies propaganda nonsense work.

Have you submitted any of your papers to a real journal yet?

 

[T.A.M.]

and then it was gone....

For a moment I though one of the CTists would step out from the cozy confines of the sham rag of a journal put out by the scholars...but just as quick as he offered, he retracted when someone called his bluff and said it could be done here...the way he wanted it.

That was very cowardice realcddeal. You offered to debate via written mail posting with Mark on this forum if it was moderated so noone else could post. This was accepted and the mods here agreed. You then promptly retracted your offer. Am I surprised, not really, although I had hoped that a PROFESSIONAL, of all the truthers, might have a spine and stand by their word.

You can come up with all the reasons you wish, but this thread is proof not only to all of us at JREF, but all those in the TM who read (a good number) that when we called your bluff and met your terms (as offered just above) you chickened out.

You opinion, and your reputation as any sort of authority or professional in my eyes, and probably in most here, has been destroyed, and would only be recoverable if you reconsidered and took up the challenge, AS YOU AGREED TO, and debated Mark here in the form of a moderated thread with "letter posting" style/format.

TAM

 

[WildCat]

3) I've criticized Gravy's Rodriguez paper, and found many unsourced claims, exaggerations, ad hominem attacks, and misrepresentations.

No, you haven't. Wait, does this refer to the Rodriquez ststements that are completely irrelevant to anything of substance in the paper? Pathetic if it is.

 

[Bell]

You appear to be taking the cowards way out, as it is obvious that you are afraid to enter into a legitimate one on one scientific debate with me without the help of your friends on the forum here. This is surreal and childish considering your attacks on me.

Do you not read what is posted in this thread by others than Gravy?

If it can be guaranteed that only Mark Roberts and I are allowed to post in letter form then that could work.

Somehow I don't believe that the forum allows for that. If the forum moderators would guarantee it I would consider it.

I can set up a moderated thread, and ensure that the mod team know that only you and Gravy are allowed to post in it.

ETA: WTF? Formatting is screwed up, but whatever I change, it keeps changing back. ???

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Grow up, Tony!

You set criteria for a debate and it was fulfilled.

Public posts on a moderated JREF forum are no less legitimate than publishing in a kook journal that Steven Jones started in order to avoid peer-review.

I only said I would consider something on the forum here. When I saw that Mark had a paper published on a Journal site that was obviously the better route to take, as Journals are intentionally set up for this type of debate. If Mark doesn't approve of his paper being on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories then why doesn't he take it down. He is obviously alright with that but not debating me there as it seems he doesn't feel he has an advantage there like he may have here.

The fact that responses here would have to be more rapid and therefore less thoughtful is what we don't want in a real scientific debate.

I am not moving goalposts as I never agreed to debate Mark here. I said I would consider it remember. The two Journals on the subject of 911 are where reasoned debate should take place. If you don't agree with that then you are acting like a provocateur.

This response is to Architect also, less the provocateur comment.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Reading back through this thread, it seems to me that the issue at hand is not whether Mark's work has been reviewed but rather Tony's concerns regarding the accuracy of the various documents and hence whether Mark is evading debate or same.

Let's stick at Peer Review for a second. What do we really mean?

Generally speaking, "peer review" refers to the process used by publishers and editors of learned and academic journals to provide a chance for scholars in the same field to examine and critique a paper or book before it is published, to help ensure its integrity and veracity. It is, if you will, a more formal (and some would say adversarial) version of asking a colleague "what do you think of this?".

Now, as a number of others have pointed out, Mark's work is not a theory or scientific hypothesis. Rather he collates various strands of research and (depending on your viewpoint) seeks to either hold up the innacuracies to the light of day or alternatively misrepresents the sources in an attempt to ridicule them.

The parallel is not the scientific process of peer review, but rather a more journalistic model. One might draw a parallel to the work of investigative journalists (for example Pilger) or even, I suppose, Michael Moore.

I doubt if there is a single person here at JREF who whould object to more responsible, accurate and unbiased standards of journalism and debate concerning the events of 911 or indeed generally. If you have concerns, then you have a right to air them.

However these concerns have to be based on issues of accuracy. If you feel that Mark has misinterpreted or misrepresented evidence, then the solution is not "peer review" but rather for you to collate and present these errors in the same manner as Mark did. Let's have trackable sources. Let's have the accuracy and reliability of such sources assessed by the author. Mark cites his sources, and they can be readily checked by someone with the time (and patience).

The issue of the format for such a process is, I think secondary. It is certainly not a process which lends itself to the rapid fire we sometimes see here. Each party will want to go away and review the evidence before responding to individual points. We will also need a way of ensuring that the discussion remains on-topic and does not seek to avoid difficult issues.

A moderated thread seems an excellent idea to me, with all other authors - myself included - excluded and a gentleman's agreement that no-one will start huffing and puffing if a reply doesn't arrive by return. Whether the goalposts have really been moving recently or whether you have both simply mis-read the posts is incidental. Lets start a fresh sheet of paper, and let's start it now.

Are the two of you ready, willing, and able to do so?

Guid point, ya big teuchter!