Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[WildCat]

Absolutely we can accommodate that. In fact, I would have stepped in to suggest this earlier had I noticed the thread.

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. We can also consider some rules if you wish. For example, how one of you is unable to respond until the other one has made their response. There would be one post by you, then one by Gravy, then one by you... and so on.

You will need to bear in mind that there may be batches of time when no moderator is available, causing a slight delay in approving posts.

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.

Run away Tony! Run fast, run far! Run like an antelope, out of control!

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

couple of counter points Red:

1. You are right, and academic discipline can peer review. However, there is no doubt that anyone who reads the titles and paper contents of many of the submissions to the sham rag for truth, that they are trying to pass it off, at least in part, as a scientific journal. As far as I am concerned, they should place a disclaimer in the journal stating what TYPE of journal it is, and that their "Peer Review" is in keeping with a general academic journal, not a scientific one.

2. The place of debate would be the JREF, but the offer, which the mods have agreed to, was that noone else besides Mark and Tony would post, and that if this was not followed, any posts by others, would be removed. Hence, the JREF Forum would simply serve as a holding place for the posts and replies, so others could read it here...calling it "home tuf" for the purposes of their debate is quite an exaggeration, or misleading.

3. If you wish to critique a paper by Gravy in a similar fashion to what has been offered and refused (now) by Tony, so that all can see your critique in the open, then ask the mods...even if Gravy has you on ignore, you can at least post your OPEN and FULL Critique with references to the pages in his paper, and references to your sources.

4. Believing in something or being a proponent of something does not make said things "his" or "his theories". He is adding his agreement to someone elses theory. It is the original theory that should be open to peer review, not gravy's stamp of approval on it.

TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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

I am offering to debate on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. How is that trying to stay in cozy confines? I never agreed to debate Roberts here. Get real there TAM. You know darn right well that I only said I would consider it and I did. The fact that Roberts has a paper on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories was not known to me before today. It appears that Roberts feels that he needs the help of his friends and he is a coward when it comes to specifically debating someone who may actually know something and will have the benefit of being able to formulate a response over time.

 

[T.A.M.]

Roberts doesn't need any of us. You have a convenient way of posting your replies and posts here, where we know NOONE will edit them besides yourselves (provided no rules of the forum are broken within), for the whole world to see. A journal is limited by edition release dates and editorial confines.

Here the replies and posting is limited only by the speed of the authors.

All other gripes (others posting in the debate, etc) have been taken care of.

I would also state, that to be fair, that until the debate is ended, that no threads be started here for the purpose of commenting on the debate.

You can label it any way you want Tony, but for anyone, truther or debunker alike, reading this thread, it is clear what has just occured.

TAM

 

[Architect]

Right, all of you guys at the back just wheesht for a second.

Real:

I seem to recall that Doc runs a wholly independent site which is specifically set up to provide an opportunity for debate. This should be neutral ground acceptable to both of you. If you undertake to debate at same then (and assuming that Mark also agrees) then I am willing to ask Doc to look favourably upon it. What say you?



And for the rest of you, a "teuchter" is a mildy derrogative terms used by the Sassenachs south of the Highland boundary fault to describe those of us who enjoy the Language of the Garden of Eden as our first tongue. Ach tha beaurla agamsa ceudeachd, ya soap-dodgin' Weegie!

 

[Gravy]

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

Well said, but the issue we've been discussing for the past few pages isn't my work, but whether realcddeal can defend his "peer reviewed" paper. He is unable to answer the simple questions I have put to him or defend the JONES "peer review" process. Period.

 

[Calcas]

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.

They would NOT have to be "more rapid" as you call it. Why do you consider this some kind of "fact?"

You two can take a week between responding to each other, or more, for all we care.

NO ONE ELSE will be allowed to post in the thread.

How in the world do you get to the conclusion that it need be some kind of rapid response debate.

One starts. The other replies when they want. Then the first replies when they want.

What, again, is wrong with this format?

 

[GreNME]

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.

You must realize that it would more than likely be a free for all and nobody has the energy to answer any and all comers. C'mon get fair about it.

Publishing letters at a site like 911myths.com can work and one has to wonder about Mark's refusal to do that.

I can do you one better than this as well. I have my own space on the web that is completely separated by both of your familiar "sides" on this matter. It also happens to run on a software that should be familiar (the same as this forum). I can segregate a nice little separate section for you and him to run your textual debate, allowing only you two the ability to post in the section.

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.

Not to put you any more on the defensive, but you are demanding a set of criteria with what seems to be the intention of biased moderation. This is why I'm specifically offering you a third-party option. If you feel your own words can stand on their own, and Gravy believes the same about his words, then this should be no problem.

I will, however, like to point out that your constant "coward" attack is no better than any of the insults you have accrued from others in this thread. You're not positioned on any high ground in your offer at this point, as you have been intentionally provoking despite claims otherwise by you. You know you are provoking. I am offering you a third-party option that can give you both a level playing field.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I am offering to debate on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories.

You are free to write a letter to the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories criticizing Mark Roberts.

Mark can't compel them to publish your letter, since he doesn't run it.

If they do publish it, I'm fairly sure they would allow him the right of reply.

I'm not at all sure that they would allow an unlimited, open-ended exchange of letters, because people running journals never, ever do so.

Still, why not write your letter and see what happens?

Otherwise, I suggest that you take up chillzero's offer of a one-on-one debate.

 

[Hyperviolet]

And for the rest of you, a "teuchter" is a mildy derrogative terms used by the Sassenachs south of the Highland boundary fault to describe those of us who enjoy the Language of the Garden of Eden as our first tongue. Ach tha beaurla agamsa ceudeachd, ya soap-dodgin' Weegie!

 

[T.A.M.]

They would NOT have to be "more rapid" as you call it. Why do you consider this some kind of "fact?"

You two can take a week between responding to each other, or more, for all we care.

NO ONE ELSE will be allowed to post in the thread.

How in the world do you get to the conclusion that it need be some kind of rapid response debate.

One starts. The other replies when they want. Then the first replies when they want.

What, again, is wrong with this format?

That said, the debate should have some general rules...both participants should decide on a time limit, like 10 days, or something like that, or else the debate could take months or years...just saying.

TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Roberts doesn't need any of us. You have a convenient way of posting your replies and posts here, where we know NOONE will edit them besides yourselves (provided no rules of the forum are broken within), for the whole world to see. A journal is limited by edition release dates and editorial confines.

Here the replies and posting is limited only by the speed of the authors.

All other gripes (others posting in the debate, etc) have been taken care of.

I would also state, that to be fair, that until the debate is ended, that no threads be started here for the purpose of commenting on the debate.

You can label it any way you want Tony, but for anyone, truther or debunker alike, reading this thread, it is clear what has just occured.

TAM

Speed is exactly what we don't want. We want REASONED debate and that takes time and is why Journals are where scientific debate should take place. You can say that the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and the Journal of 911 Studies aren't real journals if you want but the fact remains that they have the format of journals and that is where a debate of this sort should take place.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Architect]

Mark

It seems to me that there are a number of issues and, with the deepest of respect, we need to avoid simply standing about in circles pointing/shouting at each other.

Real has sought to question the accuracy of your papers (and we would, of course, have to sort of which and where). I therefore don't think that we should muddy the water with whether others might (or might not) have done so. This is an issue about whether the facts (and only the facts, gentlemen) are wrong as you presented them.

However you raise an important point. Real, if we are dealing with facts rather than scientific hypothesis then you cannot cite the latter in support of the former. Citing (for example) a Jones paper which has not been subject to scientific scrutiny in order to debunk interpretation of fact is a very difficult area. Would you intend to rely upon such sources in any debate?



Which reminds me, I must dig out my France rugby top and get ready for the game this evening.

 

[Gravy]

People, I appreciate your comments, but please do not spend your energy on this. Realcddeal cannot answer my post 134, which is a reprint of my questions to him from early August.

That's my whole point: he is not worth spending time on, and writing letters to "journals" about, if he cannot explain even a few simple things here.

 

[GreNME]

Well said, but the issue we've been discussing for the past few pages isn't my work, but whether realcddeal can defend his "peer reviewed" paper. He is unable to answer the simple questions I have put to him or defend the JONES "peer review" process. Period.

That's why I'm offering to review both his and yours, as well as provide a contrast. If he feels so strongly about the veracity of his paper, then he should feel it actually would withstand third-party scrutiny. This offer I made should be no problem for him. If he truly wants "fair" then this is the way to do it.

 

[RedIbis]

couple of counter points Red:

1. You are right, and academic discipline can peer review. However, there is no doubt that anyone who reads the titles and paper contents of many of the submissions to the sham rag for truth, that they are trying to pass it off, at least in part, as a scientific journal. As far as I am concerned, they should place a disclaimer in the journal stating what TYPE of journal it is, and that their "Peer Review" is in keeping with a general academic journal, not a scientific one.

2. The place of debate would be the JREF, but the offer, which the mods have agreed to, was that noone else besides Mark and Tony would post, and that if this was not followed, any posts by others, would be removed. Hence, the JREF Forum would simply serve as a holding place for the posts and replies, so others could read it here...calling it "home tuf" for the purposes of their debate is quite an exaggeration, or misleading.

3. If you wish to critique a paper by Gravy in a similar fashion to what has been offered and refused (now) by Tony, so that all can see your critique in the open, then ask the mods...even if Gravy has you on ignore, you can at least post your OPEN and FULL Critique with references to the pages in his paper, and references to your sources.

4. Believing in something or being a proponent of something does not make said things "his" or "his theories". He is adding his agreement to someone elses theory. It is the original theory that should be open to peer review, not gravy's stamp of approval on it.

TAM

1) The issue is Gravy's work, not Jones's journal.

2) That's a reasonable forum, but how many simultaneous threads do you expect will pop up attacking Tony on jref?

3) Excellent idea. I'll keep it in mind.

4) I heartily disagree. If Gravy is going to post his work in this public forum, call people liars, anti semites, and every other name he can think of, his research, analysis, and claims better be impeccable, rock solid, 100% sourced. For some reason, and this thread proves it once again, this guy is given a very long leash to what usually amounts to character assassination.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You are free to write a letter to the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories criticizing Mark Roberts.

Mark can't compel them to publish your letter, since he doesn't run it.

If they do publish it, I'm fairly sure they would allow him the right of reply.

I'm not at all sure that they would allow an unlimited, open-ended exchange of letters, because people running journals never, ever do so.

Still, why not write your letter and see what happens?

Otherwise, I suggest that you take up chillzero's offer of a one-on-one debate.

You are forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who has criticized my work and the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, without any real substantiation. I am simply asking him to do it the right way with a way for me to respond in a fair manner and that would be on a journal not a fast moving forum.

No rational person should disagree with that and those who do could be considered as bordering on provocateurism.

As far as Mark's actual work all I have done is question who reviews his work.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Speed is exactly what we don't want. We want REASONED debate and that takes time and is why Journals are where scientific debate should take place. You can say that the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and the Journal of 911 Studies aren't real journals if you want but the fact remains that they have the format of journals and that is where a debate of this sort should take place.

In the real world, debates do not take place in journals. After a couple of back-and-forths, the editors invariably declare the correspondence closed.

Still, if you want to, write your letter to the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. See if the editors publish it, and see if Mark replies.

No-one is stopping you from doing this.

 

[Architect]

You are forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who has criticized my work and the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, without any real substantiation. All I have done is to question who reviews his work.

With respect, that point has now been superseded by the discussion at hand.

Whether Mark's work is reviewed, or whether such review is appropriate, is neither here nor there. Your principal objection is on grounds of innacuracy of misrepresentation which would, inter alia, have been identified in the course of any such review. You have now been offered the change to undertaken a review and debate, on a suitable forums.

Do you accept?

 

[Dr Adequate]

You are forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who has criticized my work and the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, without any real substantiation. I am simply asking him to do it the right way with a way for me to respond in a fair manner and that would not be on this forum.

Why not?

This forum allows you to reply all you like. Go for it.