Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[GreNME]

Jeez, this stuff reads like a chat log.

First, realcddeal:
This -

You can review it if you are part of the review teams of either the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories or the Journal of 911 Studies.

Followed by this -

GreNME, I would agree to this format. Since Mark Roberts is the one who needs to substantiate his criticisms of my paper then he should write his letter which you can post and I will reply. Please private message me when he does so.

Does not imply to me the attitude of good faith, so honestly the two days of you attempting to use me a rhetorical tool is very much not appreciated.

I said I can review both of your papers, as well as your responses to each other on a separate and third-party location where each of you can claim is not being cornered in a hostile environment. This isn't an offer so that one of you can use it as an argument point to attack the other's veracity-- which is what you're doing. Continue to do so, and consider the offer dropped. I'm not offering neutrality, I'm offering a critical third party that you can each consider not initially or intentionally biased against either of you. For humor, I'm not offering you Switzerland, I'm offering you Canada.

----

As for this:

I have no problem with that if GreNME agrees. I do not want a cast of characters making quick comments and jetting off. GreNME appears to understand that and I am sure he would not allow that to occur.

Do you mean a politically biased web site will host your debate on science? That is not a good place.

I can see how, with all the BS political content of your failed paper, you would love a political site to host the debate.

Your scientific paper posted at wooville fits much better in a political bs venue.

Cool.

Did you get your knee-jerk out of your system enough insulting me? Just like I said to realcddeal, don't use me or my site as a weapon of insult on someone else. If you have a problem with my site, take it up with me. My site is a personal file repository on the web with a vanity front-end, nothing more. It's had other uses in the past, and I was offering it for another use that could aid in this senseless bickering.


----

If you are truly interested in a formal debate, I would recommend cutting and pasting the questions Gravy has already raised, first back in August, then again in this thread. You can send those off to GreNME with a formal response, and carry on from there. Since the questions have already been posted, why are you requiring Gravy to repost them?

This might actually be a good idea to get the ball rolling, realcddeal. If you truly wish to engage in good faith debate to actually prove your point, I'll gladly relay such information for you to start the process.

And remember, as far as the papers are concerned, all I have to do with Gravy's stuff is have him say "go ahead" to review them, as I know where they are. I have no idea where yours are, or which ones you want compared. Neither you nor Gravy have to send me anything for me to do this.

If you wanted to actually engage in debate over the contents and veracity of one of the two of your papers, I'm offering a forum where you two are the only posters, segregated from the rest of the forum. What was mentioned earlier here by one of the mods here was exactly the same offer, because I know the capabilities of this forum software and I know that the exact same thing is possible here. You now have two venues available where before you had one to actually engage in one-on-one textual debate. You each seem to have requirements of the other that you feel need to be met before you can engage in a good faith debate, so honestly I suggest you let pride go and be the one to take the first step. Yes, Gravy could do the same thing, but I'm addressing you right now, mostly because I am notably not pleased with having been a rhetorical weapon used by you when I was making a non-combative gesture to you both. If you're sick of the games and want to get down to debate, then you have a choice in this matter to get that started.

I'm not offering neutrality to anyone, I'm offering level ground for critical debate on one hand, and a third-party critical assessment on the other. I am assuming you're both adults and can handle whatever personal issues you have between each other without my involvement, so do me a favor and keep me out of it.

 

[twinstead]

My take on this situation is that certain 'truthers' have a serious problem dealing with serious, rational, objective, and factual critiques of their positions that suggest they might possibly be wrong.

There is a reason why the vast majority of the world's experts still, after 6 long years, have not come out against the official story in any way meaningful to those who think it was an inside job.

 

[Calcas]

"If you can't even deal with what amateurs have to offer, you're done."

I find it amusing that Tony keeps referring to writing "letters" over and over in this thread.

People who write on blogs or forums or anything else that isn't "a letter" (just typing that makes me laugh) isn't worth consideration.

It reminds me of a great book.

"Letters from a Nut" by Ted L. Nancy. Forward by Jerry Seinfeld. I defy anyone to read some of those letters out loud and not laugh.

Here are a few.

Again, read them out loud for the full effect.

http://englishseven.com/businessletter/businessamp.html

 

[Calcas]

As for this:
Did you get your knee-jerk out of your system enough insulting me?

Was Beachnuts comment directed toward your site?

I read it as directed at Tony and his "chosen" sites.

 

[GreNME]

My take on this situation is that certain 'truthers' have a serious problem dealing with serious, rational, objective, and factual critiques of their positions that suggest they might possibly be wrong.

There is a reason why the vast majority of the world's experts still, after 6 long years, have not come out against the official story in any way meaningful to those who think it was an inside job.

Actually, I think it's fair to say that this forum could be viewed as just as much a hostile environment as Gravy might view the 9/11 Journal group. 'Hostile' not always in the angry or openly aggressive sense, but in the contentious sense.

----

Was Beachnuts comment directed toward your site?

I read it as directed at Tony and his "chosen" sites.

You should look back at the actual post. The quote he seems to be replying to is talking about my site. I apreciated it about as much as I appreciated realcddeal's use of my offer as a rhetorical invective at Gravy, or in other words "not at all."

 

[volatile]

Agreed, but historical data collection and analysis is not as amenable to the format and standards of academic papers as a scientific analysis or experiment would be.

[derail]

I know this is a side issue but I just wanted to point out that there are academic journals and a rigorous peer review process in all disciplines, not just science. A journal that publishes historical analysis is just as capable of having a stringent peer review process as an engineering journal. Were Mark to write a paper, he could submit it to a peer reviewed journal. Of course, he's not an academic, his work is not intended to be academic and the whole point is moot, I just wanted to object to the overly narrow definition of peer review employed here.

I peer review submissions for the journal Body & Society - whilst these submissions are in the fields of philosophy and cultural studies, it is still perfectly possible to objectively review them for quality. History journals no doubt review for veracity as tenaciously as physics journals do...


[/derail]

 

[GreNME]

[derail]

I know this is a side issue but I just wanted to point out that there are academic journals and a rigorous peer review process in all disciplines, not just science. A journal that publishes historical analysis is just as capable of having a stringent peer review process as an engineering journal. Were Mark to write a paper, he could submit it to a peer reviewed journal. Of course, he's not an academic, his work is not intended to be academic and the whole point is moot, I just wanted to object to the overly narrow definition of peer review employed here.

I peer review submissions for the journal Body & Society - whilst these submissions are in the fields of philosophy and cultural studies, it is still perfectly possible to objectively review them for quality. History journals no doubt review for veracity as tenaciously as physics journals do...


[/derail]

[added derail]

Yes, this is absolutely true. Also, just like other scientific journals, the peer review can be quite critical and the writer needs to have all their proverbial ducks in a row if they don't want to be chewed up by the reviewers.

[/added derail]

This is actually why I'm offering what I am to realcddeal.

 

[beachnut]

As for this:
Did you get your knee-jerk out of your system enough insulting me? Just like I said to realcddeal, don't use me or my site as a weapon of insult on someone else. If you have a problem with my site, take it up with me. My site is a personal file repository on the web with a vanity front-end, nothing more. It's had other uses in the past, and I was offering it for another use that could aid in this senseless bickering.
----

I went to your web site forum, unknown what the subject of the web site was, and I found political bs; if you found my web site you may find stereo bs, or educational bs. So? I never figured I was this good at making insults without trying; my writing abilities are marginal. I can not help it if your web site if full of political stuff, it was on the first page and the main subject, politics. I missed the overview page explaining the web site. I can host a blog too, so?

I doubt realcddeal is going to find any facts so he can debate, or even figure out why Mark's work would be easier to pass a peer review as is than realcddeal's bs.

 

[T.A.M.]

[derail]

I know this is a side issue but I just wanted to point out that there are academic journals and a rigorous peer review process in all disciplines, not just science. A journal that publishes historical analysis is just as capable of having a stringent peer review process as an engineering journal. Were Mark to write a paper, he could submit it to a peer reviewed journal. Of course, he's not an academic, his work is not intended to be academic and the whole point is moot, I just wanted to object to the overly narrow definition of peer review employed here.

I peer review submissions for the journal Body & Society - whilst these submissions are in the fields of philosophy and cultural studies, it is still perfectly possible to objectively review them for quality. History journals no doubt review for veracity as tenaciously as physics journals do...


[/derail]

[reply to derail]

Agreed, but my point was simply that what Mark does is not amenable to the usual "paper" format, such as "Objectives, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion", and hence I am not sure he could write a paper, based on what he does, that would be amenable to peer review.

If peer review exists for "Data and information collection and synthesis" in the way mark collects and presents it, than great, I just didn't think there would be "peer review" for this. [/reply to derail]

TAM

 

[Alareth]

I was an Operations Specialist in the Navy. The job of an OS is to "Collect, Analyze and Disseminate information". Does that make me a qualified expert to peer review Gravy's works? That is what he has done in his writings.

 

[buka001]

Aye, ye cannae rely on them for onyhin'.

Where can we buy South Africa or Argentina strips in Glasgow? Is Greaves open on a Sunday?

South Africa will defeat Argentina!! South Africa will meet England in the final. But as to who will win that match mmmmm. My heart wants SA. But we can often self destruct under pressure. We beat England 36-0 in the opening game, but it wont eb that easy! Jonny Wilkinson is NOT human!! Plus my girlfriend thinks he is hot!!

 

[GreNME]

I went to your web site forum, unknown what the subject of the web site was, and I found political bs; if you found my web site you may find stereo bs, or educational bs. So? I never figured I was this good at making insults without trying; my writing abilities are marginal. I can not help it if your web site if full of political stuff, it was on the first page and the main subject, politics. I missed the overview page explaining the web site. I can host a blog too, so?

I have yet to insult your web site, I have no idea what it is about, yet it has been proposed to host some debate. I guess I can offer up a web blog for the debate, what should the title be, debateMark.beachymon.com, I only have a few domains to pick from, and only one I think I would use would be superdebatemark.beachymon.com or debateMark.beachymon.com, or anynamehere.beachymon.com.

I doubt realcddeal is going to find any facts so he can debate, or even figure out why Mark's work would be easier to pass a peer review as is than realcddeal's bs.

There's a difference between 'bs' and 'bias', and despite your claims to the contrary, you were invoking a judgment of the location as your argument against realcddeal. I told you that I don't appreciate it, just like I told realcddeal that I don't appreciate his use of my offer as an argument against gravy. Unless you're criticizing my site either on the site or in a place where the value or content of my site is relevant to the discussion, then I'll address whatever you think there. As it stands, my site was being used as a rhetorical weapon, and I'm telling you that I don't appreciate it.

Despite the impression my complaint may have given you, I am against the implication that my site is meant to be more favorable to either party in this. It's meant specifically to offer a third party separate from what I see as "JREF vs <insert forum or CT website of choice here" that is prevalent throughout many of these threads. I am openly not a conspiracy theorist, and I have been openly critical of those on this forum who are also not conspiracy theorists. I believe that puts me in a unique position where I can't be accused of toeing one line or the other in terms of hard feelings or rhetoric. Instead, your post implied that somehow my offer is perhaps biased in one way or the other, and I object vehemently to such an implication.

I don't care what you think about my political views. I'm offering an alternative to what I see as a regular form of cross-forum fighting that can easily be solved by any two individuals from each side meeting in a third-party environment that facilitates them hashing out a debate without a cheerleading squad filling up nine pages of challenges or twenty-five separate lines of debate at once mucking up the format. If it's going to be two or so people debating, then let it be two or so people debating under previously-agreed-upon terms. Multi-user forum threads are good for a large number of users to chime in as they see fit, but aren't always a good way to facilitate a debate between two people. It doesn't matter what the rest of the format of the site is if the ability facilitate a two-person debate is present, which is what I'm offering.

 

[twinstead]

Actually, I think it's fair to say that this forum could be viewed as just as much a hostile environment as Gravy might view the 9/11 Journal group. 'Hostile' not always in the angry or openly aggressive sense, but in the contentious sense.

Indeed, just like a sports arena of an opposing team could be considered hostile, I suppose.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Sorry to stick my nose in here, so late... but would I be correct in making the following observations?

1. The initial complaint is nothing other than one huge ad hominem tu quoque fallacy -- specifically, since Mr. Szamboti's paper was never peer-reviewed, despite claims to the contrary, he seeks to deflect attention by remarking that one of his critics is also not peer-reviewed (though has never claimed to be).

2. Upon failure of the opening gambit, Mr. Szamboti then desires some sort of "official" debate on his "work," either (a) to bring badly needed traffic to the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, or (b) to cloak his whitepaper in a veneer of plausibility simply by generating controversy.

If so, neither point is valid. As an un-reviewed whitepaper, un-reviewed responses are more than adequate. And the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies, being both hostile and misrepresentative of its true nature, is not an acceptable venue for discussion.

We can discuss (and have discussed) Mr. Szamboti's work in threads here, but I see absolutely no value to the Original Post. Whether or not Gravy's works are reviewed has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of Mr. Szamboti's opinions.

You are giving me more credit here than I deserve. I had no ulterior motive for bringing attention to the Journal of 911 Studies. Mark Roberts and others here do that more than enough with their attempts to smear the integrity of that Journal. The only motive I had was to show Mark Roberts lives in a glass house when he attacks the Journal of 911 Studies peer review process and yet he publishes unreviewed papers on 911, some with scientific information in them. Since he also falsely claimed that I refused to debate him I again offered to do it on not only the Journal of 911 Studies but also the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, where his paper on WTC7 is published.

I see your recent paper is published and put forth as peer reviewed on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories.

My paper was peer reviewed and whether or not you accept that is of no consequence as it doesn't change the reality.

I would also like to inquire how the peer review process works on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and also whether or not you submitted your paper to any other scientific journals.

 

[R.Mackey]

You are giving me more credit here than I deserve. I had no ulterior motive for bringing attention to the Journal of 911 Studies. The only motive I had was to show Mark Roberts lives in a glass house when he attacks the Journal of 911 Studies peer review process and yet he publishes unreviewed papers on 911, some with scientific information in them.

I shouldn't have to tell you this, but Mark has done nothing wrong. The problem is that you claim to have "peer-reviewed" your work, but you have not. Mark is under no compunction to have his work reviewed. For that matter, neither are you. The problem is that your paper is misrepresented.

I would give you still more credit than you deserve and suggest that, perhaps, you don't know what real peer-review is and were duped by Dr. Steven Jones and company, but later on we discovered that you are a reviewer for that publication, so I don't think you can claim ignorance.

Since he also falsely claimed that I refused to debate him I again offered to do it on not only the Journal of 911 Studies but also the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, where his paper on WTC7 is published.

I wouldn't use either of these, but whatever. That's between you and Mark. As for his "falsely claiming that you refused," that's not what it looks like from where I'm standing -- but if this is so, you should have no problem availing yourself of the alternate proposals put forth in this thread. It's your move.

I see your recent paper is published and put forth as peer reviewed on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories.

May I ask how the peer review process works on the Journal of Debunking 911Conspiracy Theories.

I have no idea. My paper is marked as freely reproducible, and those responsible for the "Journal" of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories put it on their site without my request or submission. I do not refer to my whitepaper as peer-reviewed, because it hasn't been.

However, I have requested any and all feedback on the paper, and I am maintaining a careful change log and version control. There is also the fact that virtually everything in my whitepaper could be independently verified. I have received a large amount of feedback on that paper, from the full spectrum of readers, including "fans" here at the JREF Forum to those sourced by Dr. Griffin. While it is just a whitepaper, I believe you will find it is of high quality. No one yet has found any significant errors in my work. I also welcome and facilitate discussion from any quarter.

 

[MolBasser]

This thread (and the fact that I even bothered to post on it) is just asinine.

How old are these people again?

If you want to debate, just do it. For freekin sake....

MolBasser

 

[leftysergeant]

What most of us are doing here, and what it appears to me that Gravy is doing, is far different from what Jones, Wood, or Gage are doing.

We are all looking at trhe evidence that has been gathered and the articles presented and the theories posited rather as would a jury or a legislative body doing oversight.

We look at what appeared to happen, what the government says happened, what the conspiracy theorists say happened.

The conspiracy theorists have their "experts." I think some of them are akin to the hired guns that corporations bring in to "prove" that all injuries resulting from the use of a product are the result of the consumers' being bumbling idiots.

But we have among us specialists in a multitude of fields, and we have people who just learn a bit of certain subjects here and there because we find it interesting, and we have people with hands-on experience with some of the phenomena under discusssion.

Jones and his kind, if they want a new investigation, have to convince thousands of people like us, from varied backgrounds. To do that, he has to prove to us that he can jump through the hoops and prove his drivel out in the presence of experts within his own discipline, among more than just his circle of fanatical comrades and crusaders for the same cause.

What we are saying, when we reject his woo-woo, is "We don't see you convincing anybody who understands this stuff that you are right, so why should we buy it?"

The standards are different for the general populace than for the closed society of academics.

 

[Myriad]

Thanks for your kind words, Myriad. I'm perfectly comfortable with the label "amateur historian" when the subject is New York City history.

I left the "amateur" part unstated (while clearly implying it) because not everyone is aware of the long tradition of successful amateur historians and their valuable contributions. (Thinking long-term, it's the professional/academic historians who are the newfangled innovations.) Some might misinterpret that label as dismissive of the quality or accuracy of the work you do (as might be justified, if it were some other field like "amateur physician" or "amateur soldier"). But I'm glad you know enough about the "history of history" to be comfortable with such a label.

But I don't accept that label as it relates to much of the 9/11 work I've done, for a few reasons:

I'd dispute this, but what's the point? Perhaps it just comes down to where you say "much of," I'd say instead "some of."

For most of the historical events I've studied in detail (I'm not an amateur historian; my wife is, and I help out), it seems there's almost always one book written and/or compiled relatively soon after the event, that is a local amateur historian's attempt at a comprehensive record. Though such books are by definition secondary sources and the author's minimal analysis is usually ignored (often unwisely, in my opinion) by later historians, they tend to include information that's no longer, in later eras, available directly from primary sources. If the book proves accurate about sources that can still be checked, it acquires close to primary-source status on those that are otherwise lost.

There's probably not really any direct modern comparison, given the mass and reduntancy of information storage and dissemination today. But your web site, nonetheless, reminds me of those "true and compleat account" histories and their patient compilers.

1) There's a fair amount of invective in my papers...

I don't think that's at all unusual. People choose fields they're passionate about; that they then proceed to publish nothing but dispassionate work in those fields is largely a myth. Sure, depending on the audience overt invective is unprofessional; but in this case your audience is not dispassionate scholars either. I wouldn't call Dawkins unprofessional for the books he's written for public consumption, though if he used the same tone in a journal paper it probably would be.

2) I deliberately make little use of the tremendous wealth of human experience and knowledge about 9/11...

For "history's" sake I'd love to see recorded interviews with every witness, first responder, etc. but respecting their privacy is appropriate. "Truthers" scurrying around looking for any mistake or discrepancy to exploit makes it harder to bring this information to light; this alone makes them deserve the invective you speak of.

3) I rarely make use of the enormous library resources at my disposal...

Probably too large a task for any one person, especially not doing it full time. This is a common complaint; I've read plenty of prefaces in which authors of meticulously and extensively researched books bemoan the limited time and resources that prevented them from looking into every possible angle.

So as far as 9/11 goes, I consider myself not a historian and barely a researcher. I'm an information organizer. To me, research takes work. Most of this stuff is quite easy. It's just time-consuming because of the number of claims to deal with.

As I explained above I see that kind of information organizing as being well within the purview of (and perhaps even a particular strength of) amateur history. But I understand your point. I certainly don't mean to seriously dispute you about it.

Building a pyramid is easy too. It's just time-consuming because of the number of big stone blocks to deal with.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Myriad]

The only motive I had was to show Mark Roberts lives in a glass house when he attacks the Journal of 911 Studies peer review process and yet he publishes unreviewed papers on 911, some with scientific information in them.

This accusation still makes no logical sense. Mark Roberts has never claimed that his papers are peer reviewed.

That's not a nit-picking detail. The issue isn't publishing without peer review; it's whether your claim that your paper was peer-reviewed holds up. No claim, no issue.

Your argument is like saying a judge shouldn't commit a crazy guy who thinks he's Napoleon, because the judge isn't Napoleon either.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[GreNME]

Actually, I think it's fair to say that this forum could be viewed as just as much a hostile environment as Gravy might view the 9/11 Journal group. 'Hostile' not always in the angry or openly aggressive sense, but in the contentious sense.

Indeed, just like a sports arena of an opposing team could be considered hostile, I suppose.

That's a poor analogy. Any time a conspiracy theorist makes a CT claim on this forum, they get dogpiled by no less than a half-dozen people right off the bat. I'm not talking about whether their claims are right or wrong. The reality is that the views toward conspiracy theory talking points are heavily biased toward "against" in this forum, and because of that it is not unreasonable to consider this forum any less "hostile" (in the way I described) that perhaps the LC forums are to people from JREF who post there, or the manner in which Gravy presumes his papers would be received by the 9/11 Journal reviewers. This is a difference of outlook, approach, and conclusion. I'm not including the name-calling and other aggressive behaviors.

What I offerred was the equivalent of an arena, where everyone who isn't actively participating can view from the metaphorical "stands" and not actually take part. In this subforum, while technically possible, it is not the way these threads are set up (by default). This doesn't mean they can't be set up that way, but that doesn't necessarily remove the first impression of the forum as a whole.

That said, I've made my offer and I think I'm going to stay out of the general argument between Gravy and realcddeal. I can be reached by private message if they come to an agreement and decide to take my offer, and we can work out a set of criteria that meets their satisfaction at that time. I'm not personally invested in the other issues going on with this thread, and at this point I don't think I want to be.