Is "peer review" science?

[CrusaderFrank]

The actual scientific method ruthlessly and relentlessly tries to find ways to FAIL a theory.

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

Where does "consensus" come in? Nowhere!

Where does "Peer Review" come in? Nowhere!

That's how you tell the difference between science and a Death worshipping Cult. One insists on science, the other tells you "we have consensus!"

 

[cnm]

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

The consensus is that it has failed a test, you moron. That's why we now have a consensus in regard to quantum physics. Stick to moaning about the lack of lab work on black holes.
Ffs.

 

[Ringel05]

The actual scientific method ruthlessly and relentlessly tries to find ways to FAIL a theory.

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

Where does "consensus" come in? Nowhere!

Where does "Peer Review" come in? Nowhere!

That's how you tell the difference between science and a Death worshipping Cult. One insists on science, the other tells you "we have consensus!"

Frank, stick to subjects you actually know something about............ This obviously isn't one of them.

 

[cnm]

Frank, stick to subjects you actually know something about............ This obviously isn't one of them.

I wonder why he insists on bloviating endlessly about something he gets wrong all/most of the time. Delusions of adequacy?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

The consensus is that it has failed a test, you moron. That's why we now have a consensus in regard to quantum physics. Stick to moaning about the lack of lab work on black holes.
Ffs.

CNM- Wrong! Consensus is not a test? In science, peer review generally occurs when a group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication. The journal's editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the "peers" of peer review).

Those peers read it and comment on it, will suggest changes, and advise if they think it is worthy of publication.

The problem with Global warming or climate change or whatever the name du jour is for it, is so many have a real financial interest in the perpetuation of the current “consensus”. It clouds and distorts the real science.

U.N.'s Global Warming Fraudsters Are More Interested In Climate Cash Than Climate Change | Investor's Business Daily

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

The consensus is that it has failed a test, you moron. That's why we now have a consensus in regard to quantum physics. Stick to moaning about the lack of lab work on black holes.
Ffs.

Are you really THAT ignorant or did an enemy hack your account?

Our current understanding cant explain why the Corona is 200 times hotter than the sun's surface and that most of what's around us is "dark matter" and "dark energy"
Consensus lol

 

[cnm]

CNM- Wrong! Consensus is not a test?

I don't understand why you write that in response to my assertion the consensus is Einstein's theory has failed a test. Are you a moron?

 

[cnm]

Consensus lol

The consensus is Einstein's theory has failed. Were you not aware?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The actual scientific method ruthlessly and relentlessly tries to find ways to FAIL a theory.

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

Where does "consensus" come in? Nowhere!

Where does "Peer Review" come in? Nowhere!

That's how you tell the difference between science and a Death worshipping Cult. One insists on science, the other tells you "we have consensus!"

Frank, stick to subjects you actually know something about............ This obviously isn't one of them.

You should have said, "I'm at a loss here, but feel I need to respond, so here goes nothing" that would have been honest and far more accurate as well

 

[cnm]

The problem with Global warming or climate change or whatever the name du jour is for it, is so many have a real financial interest in the perpetuation of the current “consensus”. It clouds and distorts the real science.

There are always dissenters. Always. That's why it's the consensus that counts. If you want to believe there is no scientific consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change I will be the last to be surprised.

edit...Too, if you want to believe that the consensus about AGW is driven by money, e.g. 'they're in it for the grants', well, that too is not unexpected on USMB.

 

[cnm]

You [Ringel05] should have said, "I'm at a loss here, but feel I need to respond, so here goes nothing"

No need to project.

 

[Ringel05]

The actual scientific method ruthlessly and relentlessly tries to find ways to FAIL a theory.

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

Where does "consensus" come in? Nowhere!

Where does "Peer Review" come in? Nowhere!

That's how you tell the difference between science and a Death worshipping Cult. One insists on science, the other tells you "we have consensus!"

Frank, stick to subjects you actually know something about............ This obviously isn't one of them.

You should have said, "I'm at a loss here, but feel I need to respond, so here goes nothing" that would have been honest and far more accurate as well

Well, it does appear you have projection down to a T. Tell you what, explain 'Peer Review' without looking it up.........

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The actual scientific method ruthlessly and relentlessly tries to find ways to FAIL a theory.

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

Where does "consensus" come in? Nowhere!

Where does "Peer Review" come in? Nowhere!

That's how you tell the difference between science and a Death worshipping Cult. One insists on science, the other tells you "we have consensus!"

Frank, stick to subjects you actually know something about............ This obviously isn't one of them.

You should have said, "I'm at a loss here, but feel I need to respond, so here goes nothing" that would have been honest and far more accurate as well

Well, it does appear you have projection down to a T. Tell you what, explain 'Peer Review' without looking it up.........

In the context of what passes for climate "science", Peer Review is a substitution for presenting any lab work. It's a circle jerk, but with climate "scientists"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Consensus lol

The consensus is Einstein's theory has failed. Were you not aware?

That's not what I wrote. Is English not your first language?

 

[Ringel05]

The actual scientific method ruthlessly and relentlessly tries to find ways to FAIL a theory.

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

Where does "consensus" come in? Nowhere!

Where does "Peer Review" come in? Nowhere!

That's how you tell the difference between science and a Death worshipping Cult. One insists on science, the other tells you "we have consensus!"

Frank, stick to subjects you actually know something about............ This obviously isn't one of them.

You should have said, "I'm at a loss here, but feel I need to respond, so here goes nothing" that would have been honest and far more accurate as well

Well, it does appear you have projection down to a T. Tell you what, explain 'Peer Review' without looking it up.........

In the context of what passes for climate "science", Peer Review is a substitution for presenting any lab work. It's a circle jerk, but with climate "scientists"

I could care less about 'climate science', I asked you to explain 'Peer Review' without googling it.

 

[Toro]

Good point!

We don't need no stinkin' science!

 

[TNHarley]

There are always dissenters. Always. That's why it's the consensus that counts.

Yea, thats what galileo was always saying too..

 

[Ringel05]

The problem with Global warming or climate change or whatever the name du jour is for it, is so many have a real financial interest in the perpetuation of the current “consensus”. It clouds and distorts the real science.

There are always dissenters. Always. That's why it's the consensus that counts. If you want to believe there is no scientific consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change I will be the last to be surprised.

Scientifically speaking that's a major stretch. Just because a large portion of scientists agree on certain findings does not mean those findings are correct or completely correct. It simply means that (hopefully) based on the observable data combined with current knowledge of how we think the system being studied works they agree this is the most likely possibility.

 

[night_son]

The actual scientific method ruthlessly and relentlessly tries to find ways to FAIL a theory.

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

Where does "consensus" come in? Nowhere!

Where does "Peer Review" come in? Nowhere!

That's how you tell the difference between science and a Death worshipping Cult. One insists on science, the other tells you "we have consensus!"

In order to understand one possible answer to your question you must first understand the troubling albeit somewhat it seems necessary dichotomy between the great philosophical approaches to epistemology and analysis of modern logic: naturalism and transcendentalism as eternally competing forms of normativity for essentially judgement of interpretive worth of all scientific rationale. Unfortunately, for the time being at least, philosophy has got the hard sciences by the _____ and is not easing up any time soon.

Who makes up the "rules" and what are they smoking in their cranial pipes? Well, the trend seems to be simultaneously toward relativized claims to truth and detranscendentalizing truth, or what appears to be stalemate between natural scientific method and pie in the sky thinking "over" and above it to arrive at acceptable conclusion by process of intellectualizing the process into a more palatable "logical" one. Of course, all papers and findings and methodology thereof are now subject to infinite interpretations by deconstructionist cultists otherwise known as "peer friends" so you can come away with all manner of procrastination explained away as interdepartmental politicking or ideological constipation. Can't let the scientists get ahead of the philosophers, now can we?

My two cents as a once and future political psychology major and long ago civil engineering postgrad.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The actual scientific method ruthlessly and relentlessly tries to find ways to FAIL a theory.

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

Where does "consensus" come in? Nowhere!

Where does "Peer Review" come in? Nowhere!

That's how you tell the difference between science and a Death worshipping Cult. One insists on science, the other tells you "we have consensus!"

Frank, stick to subjects you actually know something about............ This obviously isn't one of them.

You should have said, "I'm at a loss here, but feel I need to respond, so here goes nothing" that would have been honest and far more accurate as well

Well, it does appear you have projection down to a T. Tell you what, explain 'Peer Review' without looking it up.........

In the context of what passes for climate "science", Peer Review is a substitution for presenting any lab work. It's a circle jerk, but with climate "scientists"

I could care less about 'climate science', I asked you to explain 'Peer Review' without googling it.

Will this go on my permanent record?