NOAH'S ARK GREAT FLOOD Update

[Black Dog]

I think this Sam Harris quote fits perfectly:

That should be the auto reply to every post betsy makes. Fits like a glove.

[guyser]

That should be the auto reply to every post betsy makes. Fits like a glove.

"... If someone doesn’t value logic,..."

Yup. spot on.

[Guest Manny]

"... If someone doesn’t value logic,..."

Yup. spot on.

It's very self-reassuring to assume we know something. However, in science logic has a boundary condition. those of you who uphold logic to be your anchor to truth and reality, are really only using half your brain.

[The_Squid]

I think this Sam Harris quote fits perfectly:

Great quote. Fits every post Betsy makes.

[cybercoma]

I think this Sam Harris quote fits perfectly:

That sums up a lot of conversations here perfectly.

[Canuckistani]

It's very self-reassuring to assume we know something. However, in science logic has a boundary condition. those of you who uphold logic to be your anchor to truth and reality, are really only using half your brain.

Very true. People who deny logic in a scientific discussion aren't using any of their brain tho. Ah buleivvve, isn't science.

[Guest Manny]

Very true. People who deny logic in a scientific discussion aren't using any of their brain tho. Ah buleivvve, isn't science.

Depends on how deep you're going. There's no logic left to deny at some levels of science. Real, empirical science. Sorry if you hold logic as the most dear thing and the light to find your way out of darkness.

Also as said once by possibly the greatest scientific thinker of modern times, Albert Einstein: "Imagination ... is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."[8]

[betsy]

Mighty AC,

How does Sam Harris' quote fit perfectly? I'm assuming of course that it's a reply to my post about peer review? Read the article again:

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have.

So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.

CONCLUSION

So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1420798/

It's not about "differing opinions/values." It's about the flaws in the process!

My article talks about the non-credibility of the peer review process due to corruption, among other things. Can you please expand on how that fits perfectly.

Edited January 3, 2013 by betsy

[The_Squid]

Let's abandon peer review and modern science for what priests tell us what the bible says about science. Much better! lol. Welcome back 14th century!

[Canuckistani]

Depends on how deep you're going. There's no logic left to deny at some levels of science. Real, empirical science. Sorry if you hold logic as the most dear thing and the light to find your way out of darkness.

Also as said once by possibly the greatest scientific thinker of modern times, Albert Einstein: "Imagination ... is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."[8]

Imagination is great. But for other scientists to believe you you'll have to provide some evidence. Imagination without evidence is just mental masturbation. We can all imagine, some people stop there and it doesn't go very far. The deep knowledge you talk about is almost impossible to convey to others. People who go on and on about it usually have got nothing.

[Guest Manny]

The deep knowledge you talk about is almost impossible to convey to others.

Unless one uses "imagery".

[Canuckistani]

Unless one uses "imagery".

And the people receiving the imagery understand it. It's why Jesus used parables, which were accessible to people on different levels. People who confuse this imagery as scientific evidence don't get it. You may see deep meaning in the flood myth. Good for you. Betsy just sees evidence of the historicity of the bible, when another person would see the opposite. Yes there was a flood, no it didn't cover anything like the whole world, as the bible claims. Science tells us so. So does that make the bible historically accurate or false?

[betsy]

Depends on how deep you're going. There's no logic left to deny at some levels of science. Real, empirical science. Sorry if you hold logic as the most dear thing and the light to find your way out of darkness.

Also as said once by possibly the greatest scientific thinker of modern times, Albert Einstein: "Imagination ... is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."[8]

Manny, they're all in denial.

Notice how all the proceeding replies after the Sam Harris' quote didn't dare comment about the Peer Review article!

[The_Squid]

Manny, they're all in denial.

Notice how all the proceeding replies after the Sam Harris' quote didn't dare comment about the Peer Review article!

Did you read the entire article? It stated that peer review should be improved upon and that there are no alternatives to peer review.

It did not say that we should turn to the bible.

[betsy]

Did you read the entire article? It stated that peer review should be improved upon and that there are no alternatives to peer review.

It did not say that we should turn to the bible.

Did you read the entire article? Where does it say that you should turn to the bible???

It should be improved! But right now, it's not credible at all!

We're talking about the present time - since you brought it up as your "book of authority!" Like as if just because it got peer-reviewed, therefore it's flawless. Now we know, that peer reviews at its CURRENT state is not credible at all! I've also posted another article similar to this years ago - so this problem has been going on for quite sometime. At least they finally did a study on it!

Refer to peer reviews when it's already been improved and passed the test of credibility!

Edited January 3, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Here, for anyone who has such faith in peer reviews.

A Case Of Failed Peer Review: Dust And Death

30 October 2011

by Briggs

The distance between what civilians think peer review is and what it actually is suffers from the same failing as that evinced by Han Solo—rare pop culture reference!—when he boasted to Obi Wan Kenobi that the Millennium Falcon could do “the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.” Let him that readeth understand.

Peer review—an institution a bare century old, and arising solely to control the page count of proprietary journals—is the weakest filter of truth that scientists have. Yet civilians frequently believe that any work that has passed peer review has received a sort of scientific imprimatur. Working scientists rarely make this mistake in thinking.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4587

Edited January 3, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

And an article dated, Sep 2012. It's very long, but interesting.

False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research

High-profile cases and modern technology are putting scientific deceit under the microscope

The case, which led to two scientific papers being retracted, came on the heels of an even bigger fraud, uncovered last year, perpetrated by the Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel. He was found to have fabricated data for years and published it in at least 30 peer-reviewed papers, including a report in the journal Science about how untidy environments may encourage discrimination.

The cases have sent shockwaves through a discipline that was already facing serious questions about plagiarism.

Cases of scientific misconduct tend to hit the headlines precisely because scientists are supposed to occupy a moral high ground when it comes to the search for truth about nature. The scientific method developed as a way to weed out human bias. But scientists, like anyone else, can be prone to bias in their bid for a place in the history books.

Those who document misconduct in scientific research talk of a spectrum of bad practices. At the sharp end are plagiarism, fabrication and falsification of research. At the other end are questionable practices such as adding an author's name to a paper when they have not contributed to the work, sloppiness in methods or not disclosing conflicts of interest.

A 2006 analysis of the images published in the Journal of Cell

Biology found that 1% of accepted papers have at least one image that

has been manipulated in a way that affects the interpretation of the

data - though the authors made no conclusions about intent.

Self-correction

The refrain from many scientists is that the scientific method is meant to be self-correcting. Bad results, corrupt data or fraud will get found out – either when they cannot be replicated or when they are proved incorrect in subsequent studies – and public retractions are a sign of strength.

That works up to a point, says Fang. "It ended up that there were 31 papers from the [Mori] laboratory that were retracted, many of those papers had been in the literature for five-10 years," he says. "I realised that 'scientific literature is self-correcting' is a little bit simplistic. These papers had been read many times, downloaded, cited and reviewed by peers and it was just by the chance observation by a very attentive reviewer that opened this whole case of serious misconduct."

more..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice

[g_bambino]

It did not say that we should turn to the bible.

Where does it say that you should turn to the bible???

[guyser]

The_Squid, on 03 January 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

It did not say that we should turn to the bible.

betsy, on 03 January 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

Where does it say that you should turn to the bible???

What was that failed logic quote again?

So much of it from one person. Geebus, must be a hard way to live.

Edited January 3, 2013 by guyser

[g_bambino]

Geebus, must be a hard way to live.

Actually, doesn't the saying go: "ignorance is bliss"? It must take some effort to remain so ignorant in this ever-contracting, ever-more enlightened world of ours, though.

[ed.: +]

Edited January 3, 2013 by g_bambino

[guyser]

Actually, doesn't the saying go: "ignorance is bliss"? It must take some effort to remain so ignorant in this ever-contracting, ever-more enlightened world of ours, though.

[ed.: +]

LOL

Yes it does!

[Mighty AC]

Betsy, the peer review process is not the pillar upon which scientific knowledge rests. It is simply the first checkpoint or test. Like the article mentions mistakes and fraudulent claims are weeded out in time. I think the article even pointed out that 99% of articles submitted are free of errors, bias and conflict of interest.

I find it odd that you would attack the scientific method when you claim science is a gift from your god and cherry pick it's knowledge in an attempt to confirm your belief system. It seems that you are trying to have it both ways. If scientific knowledge is so incredulous why quote mine it to shore up your book?

[Guest Manny]

If scientific knowledge is so incredulous why quote mine it to shore up your book?

Scientific knowledge exists in the mind of man. And our minds are fallable. Science has made its share of mistakes over the centuries too, where the "establishment" or consensus among scientists opposed some radical new idea, and later on was found that the establishment was wrong. The radical idea was true. Science was turned on its head.

And who are the people who make these breakthroughs or revolutions in scientific thinking? The dreamers. The whackos. People with "their head in the clouds". The same people, you would condemn for being irrational...

[Mighty AC]

Scientific knowledge doesn't just exist in the minds of man, but you do touch on a good point. Science accepts new evidence and scientific understanding changes with it. It doesn't profess to know the answers and then deny or tap dance around any contradictory evidence. Plus, those "whackos" with their heads in the clouds didn't change conventional wisdom with faith and dreams, they provided testable, reliable, repeatable evidence.

[Guest Manny]

Scientific knowledge doesn't just exist in the minds of man, but you do touch on a good point

Oh really? Where else does it exist, in the minds of animals? Knowledge exists in the mind.