Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-14-2009, 01:17 PM
 
4,474 posts, read 5,397,151 times
Reputation: 732

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post
He lose massive quantities of crediblity when he misuses the term to back up and defend something completely ludicrous. Take this for example.


Wow
And I noticed you don't supply any either, yet post unrelated scientific article after unrelated scientific article.

 
Old 09-14-2009, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,295,801 times
Reputation: 8672
Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Although generally considered essential to academic quality, peer review has been criticized as ineffective, slow, and misunderstood (see anonymous peer review and open peer review).
 
Old 09-14-2009, 01:28 PM
 
4,474 posts, read 5,397,151 times
Reputation: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post
I've noticed you've got quite a fixation on constantly quoting from the sacred pages of Wikipedia! Funny thing is, down there in the Religion/Philosophy swamp, everytime a religious (never mattered what religion) person made a quote or even reference to Wikipedia, every Atheist-Agnostic ganged up on the individual demonizing them and calling them stupid for believing Wikipedia had any truth or credibility whatsoever. However, you constantly are found quoting it as if it were an inrefutable infallible holy book.

So what gives ???
I find it amuzing that you must resort to mere unfounded ad hominems in your arguments, besides the non sequitures of the extreme variety you've bathed this forum in.

Perhaps we can get something that makes sense out of you this time though...

Feel free to explain how an argument I have been using for nearly three decades has anything to do with Wiki, ie prove your bible accurate, infallable, and applicable to the entire human race.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post
I still find it fascinating that when backed into a corner and nothing to legitimately respond with, you fall back into the same line of filth and vulagarities and insults so prevelant down in the swamp. As usual, the A & As seem to get a free pass on this as many have continually pointed out. They must all really be special too. On that note, I dedicate this song to them from one of their own.

YouTube - Everyone is Special From Barney in Concert 2000 Version
More ad hominems and non sequitors. When proven wrong you dissolve into rather infantile, crayon colored name-calling.
 
Old 09-14-2009, 01:33 PM
 
4,474 posts, read 5,397,151 times
Reputation: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Although generally considered essential to academic quality, peer review has been criticized as ineffective, slow, and misunderstood (see anonymous peer review and open peer review).
Again, Peer Review is part and parcel of the Scientific Method. Without Peer Review, research remains personal opinion. There is a reason Peer Review is so difficult to obtain.

From your own wiki article, which you convineintly didn't post. Note the bolded red portion...

It is difficult for authors and researchers, whether individually or in a team, to spot every mistake or flaw in a complicated piece of work. This is not necessarily a reflection on those concerned, but because with a new and perhaps eclectic subject, an opportunity for improvement may be more obvious to someone with special expertise or who simply looks at it with a fresh eye. Therefore, showing work to others increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified and improved. For both grant-funding and publication in a scholarly journal, it is also normally a requirement that the subject is both novel and substantial.
Furthermore, the decision whether or not to publish a scholarly article, or what should be modified before publication, lies with the editor of the journal to which the manuscript has been submitted. Similarly, the decision whether or not to fund a proposed project rests with an official of the funding agency. These individuals usually refer to the opinion of one or more reviewers in making their decision. This is primarily for three reasons:
  • Workload. A small group of editors/assessors cannot devote sufficient time to each of the many articles submitted to many journals.
  • Diversity of opinion. Were the editor/assessor to judge all submitted material themselves, approved material would solely reflect their opinion.
  • Limited expertise. An editor/assessor cannot be expected to be sufficiently expert in all areas covered by a single journal or funding agency to adequately judge all submitted material.
Thus it is normal for manuscripts and grant proposals to be sent to one or more external reviewers for comment.
Reviewers are typically anonymous and independent, to help foster unvarnished criticism, and to discourage cronyism in funding and publication decisions. However, US government guidelines governing peer review for federal regulatory agencies require that reviewer's identity be disclosed under some circumstances. Anonymity may be unilateral or reciprocal (single- or double-blinded reviewing). There is a perception that scientific evaluation may be more biased in the former case.
Since reviewers are normally selected from experts in the fields discussed in the article, the process of peer review is considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. Scholars reading the published articles can only be expert in a limited area; they rely, to some degree, on the peer-review process to provide reliable and credible research that they can build upon for subsequent or related research. As a result, significant scandal ensues when an author is found to have falsified the research included in an article, as many other scholars, and the field of study itself, may have relied upon the original research (see Peer review failures below).

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Old 09-14-2009, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,295,801 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
Again, Peer Review is part and parcel of the Scientific Method. Without Peer Review, research remains personal opinion. There is a reason Peer Review is so difficult to obtain.

From your own wiki article, which you convineintly didn't post. Note the bolded red portion...

It is difficult for authors and researchers, whether individually or in a team, to spot every mistake or flaw in a complicated piece of work. This is not necessarily a reflection on those concerned, but because with a new and perhaps eclectic subject, an opportunity for improvement may be more obvious to someone with special expertise or who simply looks at it with a fresh eye. Therefore, showing work to others increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified and improved. For both grant-funding and publication in a scholarly journal, it is also normally a requirement that the subject is both novel and substantial.

Furthermore, the decision whether or not to publish a scholarly article, or what should be modified before publication, lies with the editor of the journal to which the manuscript has been submitted. Similarly, the decision whether or not to fund a proposed project rests with an official of the funding agency. These individuals usually refer to the opinion of one or more reviewers in making their decision. This is primarily for three reasons:
  • Workload. A small group of editors/assessors cannot devote sufficient time to each of the many articles submitted to many journals.
  • Diversity of opinion. Were the editor/assessor to judge all submitted material themselves, approved material would solely reflect their opinion.
  • Limited expertise. An editor/assessor cannot be expected to be sufficiently expert in all areas covered by a single journal or funding agency to adequately judge all submitted material.
Thus it is normal for manuscripts and grant proposals to be sent to one or more external reviewers for comment.
Reviewers are typically anonymous and independent, to help foster unvarnished criticism, and to discourage cronyism in funding and publication decisions. However, US government guidelines governing peer review for federal regulatory agencies require that reviewer's identity be disclosed under some circumstances. Anonymity may be unilateral or reciprocal (single- or double-blinded reviewing). There is a perception that scientific evaluation may be more biased in the former case.
Since reviewers are normally selected from experts in the fields discussed in the article, the process of peer review is considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. Scholars reading the published articles can only be expert in a limited area; they rely, to some degree, on the peer-review process to provide reliable and credible research that they can build upon for subsequent or related research. As a result, significant scandal ensues when an author is found to have falsified the research included in an article, as many other scholars, and the field of study itself, may have relied upon the original research (see Peer review failures below).

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I posted that to support peer review.

As some have tried to say that when we say that peer review is important, that they feel it isn't necessary. I was posting that to show them that it is intrical in scientific study to do peer review of findings.

You constantly attack me when I'm trying to back you up, ugh.
 
Old 09-14-2009, 01:55 PM
 
4,474 posts, read 5,397,151 times
Reputation: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
Ridiculous - of course it does.

You have no idea how long it has been around. But one thing's for sure - there is a lot more of it today as a result of your kind of effort.

Never said or implied it is a disease or a result of chemicals

Who do you think you're talking to? Save it for your grandchildren - I don't know why you keep wasting your time with this kind of statement.


No, it doesn't change the substance of my post in the least. The idea that homsoexuality has always been a part of the human condition is not MY idea, but the work of sociologists and other learned people in related fields.

Also, the fact that you, and those who think like you, must attempt to degrade and denigerate simple peer reviewed evidences shows the depth of the intillectual dishonesty you must sink to to support your unnatural thinking. Peer reviewed scientific findings become Scientific Laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
Baloney - all behavior is a choice. And you continue to ignore the influence of this new age culture and its social engineering that you seem to be so proud to be a part of.


I eat, is that a choice? And your "new age" culture comments are pure BS, considering that we are returning to pre-Christian ideals concerning many areas of life, homosexuality being but one. It is an "old age" mentality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
You have done a lot of posting in the global warming threads and your comments there have been very sensible. You seem to recognize that movement for what it is - political ideology gone wild. Do you not see that the loudest voices screaming that we are all doomed by CO2 emissions are the same, almost to a person, voices promoting anything and everything "gay"? Doesn't that tell you anything? Equally, it is political ideology gone wild - driven by the same zealots.
This tells me that perhaps you should trust my judgement on this matter, that the continuing resistance to acceptance of the simple fact that homosexuality is a natural part of the human race is the agenda.

BTW, I don't ever recall seeing the APA chime in on global warming. You've a link perhaps?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
It would all be harmless and humorous if it were not for the fact that it is leading shy, insecure, and very vulnerable young people in a direction in which they never would have otherwise gone.
Leading shy, insecure, and very vunerable gay young people to fully accept themselves and live happy, fullfilling lives?

Oh, the horror!
 
Old 09-14-2009, 01:57 PM
 
4,474 posts, read 5,397,151 times
Reputation: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
I posted that to support peer review.

As some have tried to say that when we say that peer review is important, that they feel it isn't necessary. I was posting that to show them that it is intrical in scientific study to do peer review of findings.

You constantly attack me when I'm trying to back you up, ugh.
Well, you DID post the part that sounded quite critical.

But I apologize, and will attempt to read future posts more closely.
 
Old 09-14-2009, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,295,801 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
Well, you DID post the part that sounded quite critical.

But I apologize, and will attempt to read future posts more closely.
I take the good with the bad, thats who I am.

Peer review isn't perfect, anyone familiar with the Scientific method knows this. However, what some of the folks here seem to be advocating is that when someone agrees with them, thats it, you can't argue with it.

The nice thing about peer review and the scientific method is that it can be argued against, it can be changed. If your arguement is good, then it will stand up to criticism.

Thats the point of the "homosexuality is a choice" arguement, it doesn't stand up to criticism, and is simply based on a religious view of morality that doesn't apply in the real world.
 
Old 09-14-2009, 02:16 PM
 
2,255 posts, read 5,383,191 times
Reputation: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
I find it amuzing that you must resort to mere unfounded ad hominems in your arguments, besides the non sequitures of the extreme variety you've bathed this forum in.
You know, one of the most challenging things when an debating or engaging an A & A in any type of discussion or arguement is that there are always two sets of rules of engagement or standards. One for the A & As and another for everyone else. Very confusing especially when the issue of equality for everyone is shouted in regards this very subject. Seriously, the discussion is okay for a time then it morphs into this degenerated abyss when no answer of substances can any longer be found. You've been given mountains of evidence and because it does not fit your version of truth, you simply lean back on your repitition of the Marxist Panel of Peers have'nt approved it therefore I don't believe it. No selfish ego inflated scientist is going to lose his or her academic career over publishing the truth of this political hot potato. It's simply not going to happen. and as for my writting style in question, here's the only answer that can be given. Deal with this!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExitMundi
More ad hominems and non sequitors. When proven wrong you dissolve into rather infantile, crayon colored name-calling.
Spoken by the man who resorts to filth, vulgarities, foul language, and insults when backed into a corner. Is there some kind of secretive website that only the Atheists/Agnostics know about that instructs on art of condescending intellectual put down of any perceived opponent ??? Seriously is there ??? I mean you all parrot one another and it sounds rediculous.
Please as many here have requested, dumped that rediculous intellectual speak, it does'nt impress anyone and it certainly does'nt add any credibilty when you constantly mix in the filth-foul & foul-filth in your usual responses.
 
Old 09-14-2009, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Old Town Alexandria
14,496 posts, read 26,517,064 times
Reputation: 8966
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
1. If it is a mental illness, then it can be found within the DSM. Feel free to post the diagnostic and treatment code for this "mental illness".

2. The sexual instict is not to procreate, but to have sex. Otherwise there would be no snuggling and smoking until the couple was certain a child had been made.
Agreed, also some people CHOOSE not to have children, yes people have sex without wanting kids.....its been a fact; how dare someone psot that children must be a by-product, no wonder the world is in such chaos, most people I've seen that have more than two kids should have been sterilized. Read Thomas Malthus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top