Orthopraxy in Apologetics?

[_ttribe]

??? Why are you putting "reviewers" in "scare quotes"? The "peer reviewers" who helped the "editor" of the "legit," "academic" journal known as FARMS Review??

They weren't "scare quotes" Scratch; I don't allow script to run from this site. As such, I am unable to use the italics, bolding or underlining features unless I temporarily allow them. Rarely do I do that; so I used the quotes as a matter of emphasis. Calm yourself.

I don't have to, since you already linked to his sketchy recent postings. I'm unimpressed with your claims that you PM'ed him, or whatever. If he has the evidence, he can post it himself. Suffice it to say that his description of the peer review process at FARMS sounds very different from the way it works at legit journals. Then again, as Trevor recently revealed (most usefully), FAIR doesn't use normal peer review either. It's been clear for a long time that "peer review" in the minds of the apologists is meant to either (A) lend the Mopologetic work the patina of scholarly credibility, and/or (B) as a means of vetting out and abolishing non-orthodox views.

I don't care whether you are "impressed" by the fact that Blair PM'd me or not. The fact is you went out of your way to smear him without actually asking him for clarification. You jumped to a conclusion (again) and landed in another huge pile of dung (again).

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't have to, since you already linked to his sketchy recent postings. I'm unimpressed with your claims that you PM'ed him, or whatever. If he has the evidence, he can post it himself. Suffice it to say that his description of the peer review process at FARMS sounds very different from the way it works at legit journals. Then again, as Trevor recently revealed (most usefully), FAIR doesn't use normal peer review either. It's been clear for a long time that "peer review" in the minds of the apologists is meant to either (A) lend the Mopologetic work the patina of scholarly credibility, and/or (B) as a means of vetting out and abolishing non-orthodox views.

I don't care whether you are "impressed" by the fact that Blair PM'd me or not. The fact is you went out of your way to smear him without actually asking him for clarification. You jumped to a conclusion (again) and landed in another huge pile of dung (again).

I stand by my conclusions, which were based on LoaP's description of the process. He can post the materials if he wants to dispel my observations.

[_ttribe]

I stand by my conclusions, which were based on LoaP's description of the process. He can post the materials if he wants to dispel my observations.

B.S. Your quest to obtain the editorial documents is completely out of line. Tell you what, why don't you choose an article from the latest JAMA, contact the author(s) and the editor(s) and make the same request? The response(s) should be enlightening.

[_Nimrod]

I stand by my conclusions, which were based on LoaP's description of the process. He can post the materials if he wants to dispel my observations.

And we know that won't happen. Must keep the secrecy of FARMS.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I stand by my conclusions, which were based on LoaP's description of the process. He can post the materials if he wants to dispel my observations.

B.S. Your quest to obtain the editorial documents is completely out of line. Tell you what, why don't you choose an article from the latest JAMA, contact the author(s) and the editor(s) and make the same request? The response(s) should be enlightening.

There's a problem with your proposed comparison, since FARMS is, by the editors' own admission, a "polemical" journal rather than a serious, scientific research journal ala JAMA. Furthermore, we all know LoaP here and have spent a fair amount of time interacting with him. What you are suggesting is an "out of the blue" contacting of some random person. Surely even you understand how this is very different than the request that has been made to LoaP.

In the end, I don't care whether LoaP posts the material or not. If he wants to affirm the apologists' claims about their own peer review process, though (especially in light of the recent Trevor incident), he may want to consider posting the comments. Either way, it makes no difference to me. I am more than happy for him to remain permanently silent on the matter.

[_ttribe]

There's a problem with your proposed comparison, since FARMS is, by the editors' own admission, a "polemical" journal rather than a serious, scientific research journal ala JAMA.

It is you who insists on holding them to such a standard. Not I. Given that, you shouldn't get all upset when they behave like a "serious, scientific journal" and refuse your silly requests.

Furthermore, we all know LoaP here and have spent a fair amount of time interacting with him. What you are suggesting is an "out of the blue" contacting of some random person. Surely even you understand how this is very different than the request that has been made to LoaP.

"...even [me]" Scratch? Was that a bit of an insult?

Fine then, go ahead and choose a "serious, scientific" journal where you do know people. Let's try the experiment.

In the end, I don't care whether LoaP posts the material or not.

Oh yes you do; else you wouldn't spend so much time on your Quixotic quest.

If he wants to affirm the apologists' claims about their own peer review process, though (especially in light of the recent Trevor incident), he may want to consider posting the comments. Either way, it makes no difference to me. I am more than happy for him to remain permanently silent on the matter.

You do realize that the so-called "Trevor Incident" was related to FAIR, not the MI, right? And that the two are not one and the same?

[_ttribe]

Feel free to quote the portion where LoaP said that he received the reviewers' comments, Tim.

by the way, who did you think the comments were from in the first place if not the reviewers?

[_Doctor Scratch]

There's a problem with your proposed comparison, since FARMS is, by the editors' own admission, a "polemical" journal rather than a serious, scientific research journal ala JAMA.

It is you who insists on holding them to such a standard. Not I.

This doesn't make any sense. For one thing, it is *FARMS* who claims to use a legit peer review process. If anything, I am holding them to their own, declared standard. And, as I pointed out, the FROB is a "polemical" journal (DCP's own description of it), rather than a serious, research-based journal ala JAMA. That ought to be fairly obvious.

Given that, you shouldn't get all upset when they behave like a "serious, scientific journal" and refuse your silly requests.

Again: I don't believe that FARMS Review is a "serious, scientific journal." I believe it is a "polemical" attack journal. I don't believe that they use a legitimate form of peer review.

Furthermore, we all know LoaP here and have spent a fair amount of time interacting with him. What you are suggesting is an "out of the blue" contacting of some random person. Surely even you understand how this is very different than the request that has been made to LoaP.

Fine then, go ahead and choose a "serious, scientific" journal where you do know people. Let's try the experiment.[/quote]

As I've said: the FARMS Review is not a "serious, scientific" journal, so there is no basis for comparison (except in the minds of the apologists, one assumes). Plus (as I've said), there has been a rather long, ongoing discussion about the problematic peer review process in Mopologetics, whereas that same process in the "real" world is well-established and respected. There's no need to interrogate the peer review process at JAMA or Science or The Lancet since it's long been established that they do legitimate work. Can the same be said for FARMS, though? No. It cannot.

If he wants to affirm the apologists' claims about their own peer review process, though (especially in light of the recent Trevor incident), he may want to consider posting the comments. Either way, it makes no difference to me. I am more than happy for him to remain permanently silent on the matter.

You do realize that the so-called "Trevor Incident" was related to FAIR, not the MI, right? And that the two are not one and the same?[/quote]

The two organizations are very closely related.

by the way, who did you think the comments were from in the first place if not the reviewers?

The editor(s).

[_ttribe]

This doesn't make any sense. For one thing, it is *FARMS* who claims to use a legit peer review process. If anything, I am holding them to their own, declared standard. And, as I pointed out, the FROB is a "polemical" journal (DCP's own description of it), rather than a serious, research-based journal ala JAMA. That ought to be fairly obvious.

If you are holding them to "their" standard, then you shouldn't be shocked when they reject your request, just like any "serious, scientific journal" would.

Again: I don't believe that FARMS Review is a "serious, scientific journal." I believe it is a "polemical" attack journal. I don't believe that they use a legitimate form of peer review.

Why don't you define what that would look like - double blind? Reviewers who are familiar with the issues at hand and have possibly published on these issues? What else?

As I've said: the FARMS Review is not a "serious, scientific" journal, so there is no basis for comparison (except in the minds of the apologists, one assumes). Plus (as I've said), there has been a rather long, ongoing discussion about the problematic peer review process in Mopologetics, whereas that same process in the "real" world is well-established and respected. There's no need to interrogate the peer review process at JAMA or Science or The Lancet since it's long been established that they do legitimate work. Can the same be said for FARMS, though? No. It cannot.

And what makes you qualified to perform such an interrogation, pray tell?

The two organizations are very closely related.

So are oranges and grapefruit, that doesn't make them the same.

The editor(s).

So you assumed this and failed to ask for clarification. Maybe your failure to seek clarification was strategic?

[_Doctor Scratch]

This doesn't make any sense. For one thing, it is *FARMS* who claims to use a legit peer review process. If anything, I am holding them to their own, declared standard. And, as I pointed out, the FROB is a "polemical" journal (DCP's own description of it), rather than a serious, research-based journal ala JAMA. That ought to be fairly obvious.

If you are holding them to "their" standard, then you shouldn't be shocked when they reject your request, just like any "serious, scientific journal" would.

No, Tim. What you're proposing/arguing doesn't make any sense for a variety of reasons. At heart, you're just mad that LoaP has been asked to prove that FARMS does in fact use legit peer review. You can claim that this is "unfair" (or whatever) because you don't think that LoaP should be the one who's responsible for defending FARMS's practices, and that's fine.... But that's not really what you're trying to prove with your silly JAMA example. What you're trying to prove, instead, is that it's unreasonable to question peer review generally. But there's not really any basis for your position. It *is* okay to question peer review as a process. (Legit peer review exists, in a sense, to question itself. It exists to allow scholars to question one another's positions without personal issues getting in the way. "Personal issues" can still creep into individual comments and observations, but that is a separate concern.)

What you are saying, in effect, is: "Hey! You can't question peer review at FARMS! You'd never do that if it was JAMA we were talking about!" And all I can say is: Yes. You're right. I have no reason to question JAMA's peer review. JAMA, as far as I know, does not publish attack pieces on "crank" doctors. JAMA, as far as I know, doesn't pick apart the physiology of the red-nosed guy in the game Operation!. JAMA, as far as I know, publishes original research, rather than a lot of book reviews. JAMA, last I checked, was not claiming that a vast civilization, for which there is little to no physical evidence, existed in Meso America.

But there is a lot of reason to wonder what sort of peer review is happening at FARMS. Honestly, Tim---think about what you are arguing here. Can you honestly say that you believe that "Metcalfe is Butthead" is the sort of thing that would happen at JAMA, or The Lancet or Nature?

On the other hand, if one of these medical journals suddenly began publishing a series of articles which all seemed to support the findings of, say, GlaxoSmithKline---and that, in fact, except for very limp and occasional criticism, *all* of the articles seemed aimed at supporting this pharmaceutical company, and that, moreover, lots of very personal articles were being published with personally attacked scientists and researchers at other journals and pharmaceutical companies.... Then yes, I'd be more than happy to inquire into their peer review.

But, as I've said, it's really not that big of a deal. If the powers that be at FARMS decide that they believe in transparency, and that they want to discuss their process in more detail, I'll be the first to applaud them for it. I mean, what do they have to hide? OOOhhh! Oh no! The critics might [i]notice something!

here come the black suburbans
1, 2, and 3
here come the black suburbans
looking after me
and I see myself reflected in their tinted windows
and I smile
I feel so safe when they're around me
I really hope they stay a while

they got the secret numbers
they got the skeleton key
they got a tap on my telephone line
finally someone listens to me
and every night I hear 'um
as they crawl around inside of my walls
I guess I must've been suspicious
or else a neighbor tipped 'um off

and if you're feeling lonely
like just another so and so
write a letter to anyone
they'll be looking through your mail, you know

here come the black suburbans
1, 2, and 3
here come the black suburbans
looking after me
and I see myself reflected in their tinted windows
and I smile
I feel so safe when they're around me
I really hope they stay a while