How important is peer review? How reliable?

[_Jersey Girl]

One more question.

Is peer review our best assurance regarding the accuracy of one's reasearch and conclusions?

If not, what is?
l
l
l
l
l
l
If I go to this movie, will they stop posting the ad?

[_Jersey Girl]

So why would Daniel say those publications were appropriate for Trixie to publish in, when they have nothing to do with horses in mesoamerica nor are they recognized experts in the LDS religion? When one is marrying two radically different concepts (horses in mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon), how does one choose which catagory to attempt to publish in?

That's a good question, harm. Where would beastie/Trixie submit such an article for peer review?

Anyone?

[_Jersey Girl]

Additionally, I think what Kerry was forwarding was the idea that apologists encounter criticism because their work isn't peer reviewed. It seems to me that he was saying the same is true for the work of counter apologetics.

Is it more the point that there IS no professional/academic venue for submitting such work for peer review on either side of the house?

[_Ray A]

Perhaps relevant to this thread:

The importance of peer review

[_JustMe]

I thought you were just playing. A "third way" to avoid the ill conseqences Scratch outlined I'm pretty sure is impossible. At least you're honest enough to admit that now.

The only ill consequences about this board is having to read Scratch's innanities. I have admitted to nothing about being unable to play within the phony setup Scratch pretends is reality. I simply don't take anything by Scratch as worth making a fuss about. There is nothing real about anything he sets up.

[_harmony]

I thought you were just playing. A "third way" to avoid the ill conseqences Scratch outlined I'm pretty sure is impossible. At least you're honest enough to admit that now.

The only ill consequences about this board is having to read Scratch's innanities. I have admitted to nothing about being unable to play within the phony setup Scratch pretends is reality. I simply don't take anything by Scratch as worth making a fuss about. There is nothing real about anything he sets up.

Then ignore him. You're taking away from Jersey's thread with your childish behavior.

[_Jersey Girl]

I thought you were just playing. A "third way" to avoid the ill conseqences Scratch outlined I'm pretty sure is impossible. At least you're honest enough to admit that now.

The only ill consequences about this board is having to read Scratch's innanities. I have admitted to nothing about being unable to play within the phony setup Scratch pretends is reality. I simply don't take anything by Scratch as worth making a fuss about. There is nothing real about anything he sets up.

Could we now return to topic?

Jersey Girl
Thread Starter

[_JustMe]

Could we now return to topic?

Jersey Girl
Thread Starter

Yep. Sorry I derailed it. It won't happen again, unless Scratch shows up - LOL! (kidding Jersey Girl, truly kidding!)

[_Jersey Girl]

Could we now return to topic?

Jersey Girl
Thread Starter

Yep. Sorry I derailed it. It won't happen again, unless Scratch shows up - LOL! (kidding Jersey Girl, truly kidding!)

If Scratch shows up and the two of you engage in off topic dialogue, I will verbally beat you both into oblivion on this thread to the point of demolishing what I myself have created.

You know I can.

Jersey Girl
Self Appointed Thread Referee and Bouncer

[_Joey]

It can be very useful. At a minimum, it should be offered to objective "qualified" peers. If it is not even offered up for peers to review, it is probably suspect to begin with. 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.

Hence we have the works of Clark and Sorenson on Book of Mormon historicity still being, per Peterson, completely ignored. And no effort on the part of the authors or proponents to request or submit for peer review.


Great question. Obvious answer.

Kind of like Gregor Mendel?

Mike Ash
http://www.ShakenFaithSyndrome.com

No, kind of like "common sense".

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.

All we see with Peterson, and now you, in defense of the works of Book of Mormon historicity by Clark and Soresnon is the same ol tired, "it hasn't been discovered yet" or "it is not understood". We see references to works from the 18th, 19th and even early 20th century that they needed the passage of time for recognition. 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. The arguments and analogies fail miserably to take into context our medium today. 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.

Is it any wonder why the works of Clark and Sorenson in Book of Mormon historicity are ignored? If Peterson arguments on these message boards are any preview or indication of these works, they will stay where they are in the bowels of FARMS. If they are what Peterson claims they are, why be afraid to submit them to peer and professional review to the secular community? But 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. I recognize however, he is a hero to many in Provo and over at MADB, two of the first places that come to mind for most when "quality scholarship" or "quality arguments" are mentioned!!!!