Joey wrote:...as dense as he displays himself here...
... his lap dogs ...
...He is a loon ...
You started out fine, but then you descended into name-calling.
If you can't present your argument without name calling, then you have no argument to present. (and yes, I've said the same thing to both sides in a variety of ways). Try to avoid becoming that which you despise.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Jersey Girl wrote:My understanding is that in the process of (at least some) academic peer reviews are conducted in such a way that the reviewers are anonymous to the person's whose work is being reviewed.
Is this true in all cases of peer review?
It's true in many cases, but not in all. In some very small fields, for example, the experts recognize each other's ideas and style rather easily, so there's not much point in pretending.
Jersey Girl wrote:What are the pitfalls of such a process?
Ideological partisanship and/or personal rivalries and grudges may subvert its fairness.
Jersey Girl wrote:If reviewers are anonymous, what protection does the applicant have against possible bias on the part of reviewers?
Little or none.
Jersey Girl wrote:In the case of double-blind reviews, are both the applicant and reviewers anonymous to each other and can that be requested?
Yes.
Usually not. Such a process is typically either in place or it isn't.
Joey wrote: People like Peterson, and perhaps you, love to live in the isolated world of Mormon apologetics that is void of common sense. I have no doubt that is why Peterson (and you?) make a life in Provo working in obscure professions that tolerate book smart but need no common sense. The very difference between those who can and those who teach. . . .
While laughable, the ignorance displayed is really pretty sorry for those who claim an academic background. (Perhaps another warning sign for our educational system here in the U. S.)
The fact that we have dissemination of information, scholarship, publications, and everything else in life at the click of a mouse completely escapes bozos like you and Peterson. . . . Hence that is exactly why he teaches. Isolation and the ivory tower is great for guys like him, and perhaps you, where the reality of our world and common sense in thought process is non-essential. Tenure and having the church support you is much more critical. So go along to get along. . . .
I think even Peterson, as dense as he displays himself here, knows the answer to that question.
But let his lap dogs continue to come here and prop up his arguments and his spirits. He is a loon and continues to not only embarrass himself, but demonstrates the very weaknesses in our educational system.
Joey, do you have anything to offer to the discussion beyond sneering and pretended superiority?
People like Peterson, and perhaps you, love to live in the isolated world of Mormon apologetics that is void of common sense. I have no doubt that is why Peterson (and you?) make a life in Provo working in obscure professions that tolerate book smart but need no common sense. [snip] ...same ol tired ...While laughable, the ignorance displayed is really pretty sorry for those who claim an academic background.... ...completely escapes bozos like you and Peterson. ...fail miserably ...Isolation and the ivory tower is great for guys like him, and perhaps you, where the reality of our world and common sense in thought process is non-essential. ...So go along to get along. ...But let his lap dogs continue to come here... ...He is a loon and continues to not only embarrass himself, but demonstrates the very weaknesses in our educational system....
Did your venting make you feel better? This is why I rarely participate on message boards. It so much easier to make nasty assertions than it is to engage in argument and evidence. I see none of the later in your post.
No. Not at all. Forgetting for a moment that the peer-review system as we know it was still emerging at the time and therefore not entirely similar, Mendel sought out peer review. He even was published. His work just didn't gain traction. I think you were shooting for a version of what is sometimes called the Galileo gambit here, where one points out a famous scientist rejected or neglected by the prevailing scholarly orthodoxy who later was accepted to lend defense to cranks currently rejected or or neglected by the scholarly community (Intelligent Design-Creationists, Holocaust Deniers, AIDS denialists, UFOologists, Psychic Detectives, FARMS apologists, etc.) However, what you were replying to was criticizing Peterson et. al. for not seeking out publication in the peer review system. That may be wrong, but a comparison to Mendel won't do here.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No. Not at all. Forgetting for a moment that the peer-review system as we know it was still emerging at the time and therefore not entirely similar, Mendel sought out peer review. He even was published. His work just didn't gain traction. I think you were shooting for a version of what is sometimes called the Galileo gambit here, where one points out a famous scientist rejected or neglected by the prevailing scholarly orthodoxy who later was accepted to lend defense to cranks currently rejected or or neglected by the scholarly community (Intelligent Design-Creationists, Holocaust Deniers, AIDS denialists, UFOologists, Psychic Detectives, FARMS apologists, etc.) However, what you were replying to was criticizing Peterson et. al. for not seeking out publication in the peer review system. That may be wrong, but a comparison to Mendel won't do here.
I was replying to Joey's specific comments:
It should also have enough credibility to attract qualified "peers". If it can't even attract the interest of professional peers, it is probably lacking credibility to start with.
Those who argue that such works "are ignored" to defend their credibility obviously don't have the confidence in such works to request a review from objective, qualified peers in the first place. It is much safer to leave them on the shelves of obscurity than to promote and/or request professional peers to give their opinions.
Of course if such qualified peers continue to ignore such works, even after the author's or proponents request, it is telling of the work from the start.
MAsh wrote:I was replying to Joey's specific comments:
It should also have enough credibility to attract qualified "peers". If it can't even attract the interest of professional peers, it is probably lacking credibility to start with.
Those who argue that such works "are ignored" to defend their credibility obviously don't have the confidence in such works to request a review from objective, qualified peers in the first place. It is much safer to leave them on the shelves of obscurity than to promote and/or request professional peers to give their opinions.
Of course if such qualified peers continue to ignore such works, even after the author's or proponents request, it is telling of the work from the start.
That's what I gathered. The problem is that Mendel did request review from objective, qualified peers. He even was published. The problem was that his work didn't take off until he was rediscovered much later, not that he failed to display enough confidence in his work have it evaluated by professional peers. He's not a good example.