peer review.

Revolutionary91 said:
No you produced a false statement without proving an intention to mislead. Are all journalists lying when they issue a false report? Are the BBC lying when they said wtc7 had collapsed early?
Click to expand...
Hopsicker made two blatantly false statements about a printed document that was right in front of him. Remember, he's supposed to be an investigative reporter. This isn't a matter that requires any investigation: just eyesight. Note that skepticalcriticalguy did not challenge my assessment. Oh, and note that I pointed out other Hopsicker blatant falsehoods.

If you're not aware that these people don't tell the truth, it's time to wake up.

Remember, SCG was challenged to name any 9/11 claim that Hopsicker or the others got right. He couldn't. And these were the guys he was recommending.
 
Revolutionary91 said:
I submit the above post as further evidence.
Click to expand...
Rev, I'm done here. You're acting like a baby. You said that I claim that all false statements by others are lies. That is a blatant lie: a statement that you know is false and cannot support, and you should apologize and retract it. The more you post here, the farther from adulthood you appear to be.
 
Last edited:
Revolutionary91 said:
Are the BBC lying when they said wtc7 had collapsed early?
Click to expand...

Have you watched the video report?

Post on here exactly what the reporters say at the start of the report

Does they use words like "sketchy" and "apparently" and "reports coming in"?

They are reporting what they are told are they not? Do they give their sources? They were mistaken, very easily done, especially on days like that

Prior to 911 I was in New York and went up the Twin Towers, however I never knew and did not until recently that the WTC7 was the Solomon building, why would the BBC people have known that day?
 
Gravy said:
Rev, I'm done here. You're acting like a baby. You said that I claim that all false statements by others are lies. That is a blatant lie: a statement that you know is false and cannot support, and you should apologize and retract it. The more you post here, the farther from adulthood you appear to be.
Click to expand...

Yes I think you should quit and take that walk round the block. It must be demoralising to be arguing with a 15 year old on the internet, at your age.
 
Revolutionary91 said:
Yes I think you should quit and take that walk round the block. It must be demoralising to be arguing with a 15 year old on the internet, at your age.
Click to expand...



What would we do without truthers and their adolescent posturing.
 
OK, everyone needs to calm down here, and back off from the personal stuff. Please address the points raised, and not the age, etc of the person who posts it. If there is any further bickering, then posts will be split off to AAH. Let's get back on topic, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Revolutionary91 said:
I agree 8den. Perhaps you can teach this to Gravy. He calls everyone that utters something false a liar without proving their intention.
Click to expand...

If I produce a post where Gravy corrects something false in one of my posts without calling me a liar, will you retract this accusation?
 
Revolutionary91 said:
I agree 8den. Perhaps you can teach this to Gravy. He calls everyone that utters something false a liar without proving their intention.
Click to expand...

mortimer said:
How many fighters at Andrews, and how many of them were combat ready and not just on alert?

During the Cold War, we had fighters armed and ready, and a rotation of pilots who could jump into those planes at a moment's notice. Once the Cold War was over, the "Peace Dividend" kicked in, and there weren't any fighters or crew that were kept combat ready. Fighters that were on alert could take several hours to make combat ready.
Click to expand...
Gravy said:
Andrews was not an alert base as of 9/11. You'll find answers to the common conspiracist claims about the military response at my site, linked in my sig.

Mortimer, your statement isn't accurate. There were 7 alert bases in the U.S. on 9/11, each with 2 fighters armed and ready to launch on short notice. On the east coast, those bases were Otis ANG on Cape Cod and Langley in Virginia. Fighters were launched from those bases in response to the hijackings but did not have sufficient time or information to intercept any of the airliners. Also, AA 77, which hit the Pentagon, made its turn towards D.C. in an area that lacked primary radar coverage. ATC was looking for it along its projected flight path. The Secret Service did contact Andrews to see if they had planes available, but they had none that were armed and ready.
Click to expand...

Rev, would you care to retract your accusation against Gravy?
 
I would make note that everytime Rev gets fed up, it is HE who mentions his age, usually in the fashion of...

"I hope you guys get a kick out of arguing with a 15 year old".

So it works both ways REV. Besided, anyone who thinks that a 15 year old doesnt have a lot to learn about everything, including life, is probably 15 or younger themselves.

TAM:)
 
William Rea said:
Took a while for that penny to drop didn't it.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Let's move on to your response to the following (assuming you return after your suspension):

nicepants said:
Please explain the difference between your definitions of

"Independent verification" and "peer-review".

Can an independent verification be part of a peer-review?
Can a peer-review be part of an independent verification?
Click to expand...
 
Revolutionary91 said:
No you produced a false statement without proving an intention to mislead. Are all journalists lying when they issue a false report? Are the BBC lying when they said wtc7 had collapsed early?
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between being a liar and simply being wrong?
 
mortimer said:
If I produce a post where Gravy corrects something false in one of my posts without calling me a liar, will you retract this accusation?
Click to expand...

He has done the same to me. It is probably important to note that it was obvious that I was mistaken rather than lying, and that Gravy apparently can tell the difference.
 
On topic:

The present peer review process of scientific articles IS seriously flawed inspite of some, unsupported, BS, comments to the contrary on this thread. Do the individuals who express such opinions have ANY experience with reviewing SCIENTIFIC articles? I doubt it! And, by the way, I have seen a FRS and Professor of chemistry tell blatant lies to a journal when questioned about his review of a competitor's paper. And the same Professor kept porno magazines in his office desk to help pass the time! Ah, yes there are many upstanding scholars at our universities......

Anyway, I have a way to improve the peer review process that I have thought about for many years. It is this:

The paper should be sent to a reviewer with the author's name removed. In this way it is now an "anonymous" paper that could have been written by anyone. Of course the reviewer may recognize the style and associate the content with a particular individual, but the reviewer could never be sure of the authorship until the paper appeared. This would remove a lot of the bias that plagues the current peer review process. After all, there is absolutely no reason for the author's name to appear on the submitted paper!

What I am suggesting would not solve all the problems with peer review but I believe it would be a significant improvement.
 
Apollo20 said:
The present peer review process of scientific articles IS seriously flawed inspite of some, unsupported, BS, comments to the contrary on this thread. Do the individuals who express such opinions have ANY experience with reviewing SCIENTIFIC articles?
Click to expand...

Er, yes. Thirty-odd peer-reviewed articles, three books, and a hundred or so conference papers published, and I don't keep track of the number of reviews that I do.

And as far as I can tell, you're way off base.

And, by the way, I have seen a FRS and Professor of chemistry tell blatant lies to a journal when questioned about his review of a competitor's paper.
Click to expand...

Shrug. That's why papers have multiple reviewers, precisely to prevent this. There's always some wingnut. An otherwise good paper will not typically be rejected on the basis of a single review.

Anyway, I have a way to improve the peer review process that I have thought about for many years. It is this:

The paper should be sent to a reviewer with the author's name removed. In this way it is now an "anonymous" paper that could have been written by anyone. Of course the reviewer may recognize the style and associate the content with a particular individual, but the reviewer could never be sure of the authorship until the paper appeared.
Click to expand...

In many journals, this is already standard practice. In many others, this has been tried and found wanting; the main reason is that in small fields, the major reviewers know all the players and anonymity is pointless. Everyone knows Dr. Erlenmeyer's problem, his equipment, and his theoretical approach, which makes papers by Doc E. almost trivial to spot.
 
Apollo20 said:
On topic:

The present peer review process of scientific articles IS seriously flawed inspite of some, unsupported, BS, comments to the contrary on this thread. Do the individuals who express such opinions have ANY experience with reviewing SCIENTIFIC articles? I doubt it! And, by the way, I have seen a FRS and Professor of chemistry tell blatant lies to a journal when questioned about his review of a competitor's paper. And the same Professor kept porno magazines in his office desk to help pass the time! Ah, yes there are many upstanding scholars at our universities......
Click to expand...
poisoning the well and strawman not necessary. Keeping magazines of any type are not a reflection of the individual's prowess in his field of expertise...

Anyway, I have a way to improve the peer review process that I have thought about for many years. It is this:

The paper should be sent to a reviewer with the author's name removed. In this way it is now an "anonymous" paper that could have been written by anyone. Of course the reviewer may recognize the style and associate the content with a particular individual, but the reviewer could never be sure of the authorship until the paper appeared. This would remove a lot of the bias that plagues the current peer review process. After all, there is absolutely no reason for the author's name to appear on the submitted paper!

What I am suggesting would not solve all the problems with peer review but I believe it would be a significant improvement.
Click to expand...

I am surprised that in the more competitive "Publish-or-perish" fields that this is not already the case. It would make a lot of sense.
Perhaps Mackey can answer this one--Doesn't a NASA TN or TR (As they used to be called) have the author's name removed during the review process prior to the "Editorial"? I THINK that it used to be so during review (back in the 1970's), but you also had to go in and defend the report/Tech Note in front of a committee at some point to achieve actual publication and getting an actual number assigned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom