Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[stereologist]

Just now, Illyrius said:

You are boring man. You can't face the fact that you talk nonsense i asked you a simple question and you simply can't admit the truth.

I answered the question twice.

You still don't know what peer review does. Just because you don't understand what science is and what peer review does, in no way prevents you from learning.

The simple truth is that the JSE is not what it pretends to be. It is not about science and not about peer review.

[stereologist]

Just now, Illyrius said:

Whatever, people who work there are scientists and it is a peer reviewed journal. It is simple and clear. You can carry with distractions and keep on denying a very simple truth.

You continue to pretend that they are scientists acting like scientists. It is clear that you are clueless about what science is, but you can learn. Labeling someone as a scientist does not mean that they do everything in a scientific manner. An example is Pauling, a Nobel laureate, was into mega dosing of vitamins.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

I answered the question twice.

You still don't know what peer review does. Just because you don't understand what science is and what peer review does, in no way prevents you from learning.

The simple truth is that the JSE is not what it pretends to be. It is not about science and not about peer review.

Are people who work there educated scientists? And what exactly makes this journal non-scientific?

[stereologist]

Just now, Illyrius said:

Are people who work there educated scientists? And what exactly makes this journal non-scientific?

I've already answer this question. Can you read? Maybe it is the comprehension that is lacking.

Quote

The journal publishes non-scientific speculations. The parrot on Mars is a great example. Q.E.D.

You continue to have the failure of assuming that labeling someone a scientist pretends what they do is science.

[Will Due]

21 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

I think this is how we should converse from now on as it puts us both on equal footing and it will lead us both to the same lack of knowledge.

 

My path is not on equal footing with yours IC. 

Because based on what you stated, you definitely have the knowledge that your path will lead to the lack of knowledge. 

For heaven's sake, why would you stay on your path?

 

 

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

I've already answer this question. Can you read? Maybe it is the comprehension that is lacking.

You continue to have the failure of assuming that labeling someone a scientist pretends what they do is science.

You claim they are not scientists, right? That is enough for me to stop this discussion because i am obviously talking to a wall.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Illyrius

[stereologist]

Just now, Illyrius said:

You claim they are not scientist, right? That is enough for me to stop this discussion because i am obviously talking to a wall.

You really have a poor reading ability. I never claimed "they were not scientist". You clearly need to learn to read.

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Illyrius said:

You can keep banging with your cute bias whatever you like. He is a scientist and that is a fact. Look up for the definition of scientist. A person educated in science and active in scientific investigation. He is educated in sceince and has his articles published in scientific peer reviewed journals.

And please continue this little biased talk. It's fun.

Hi Illyrius

Is a cop still a cop if he takes money from criminals? If he doesn't abide to the code he is a criminal same difference.

jmccr8

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

You really have a poor reading ability. I never claimed "they were not scientist". You clearly need to learn to read.

What are they, pseudoscientists? Can you be clear for once in your life? Define what they are clearly.

[stereologist]

Just now, Illyrius said:

What are they, pseudoscientists? Can you be clear for once in your life? Define what they are clearly.

The issue is with the content of the journal. Any of  your speculation about the staff is meaningless.

[Illyrius]

Just now, stereologist said:

The issue is with the content of the journal. Any of  your speculation about the staff is meaningless.

Can you answer a simple question without distracting. What are those people, are they scientists or not?

[GlitterRose]

On 2/21/2018 at 8:33 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Illyrius

There may be more chaos in the universe then is practical for intelligent design. Why create a system with such a small percentage of planets in goldilocks zones and so many more that are not conducive for life if that intelligence created life to be loved?

If there is no motive then the likelihood of intelligent design is minimal and we are left with chance of conditions which is a reasonable starting point.

jmccr8

It would make perfect sense if it was the demiurge, Yaldabaoth...the embodiment ? of chaos. 

Not such a nice entity, though. Hardly one worthy of worship.

[stereologist]

The JSE had or has an editor named Henry Bauer. He is an AIDS denialist. He denies that there is any scientific evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV.

Great staff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Bauer

[I'mConvinced]

Science - produces 

6 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

My path is not on equal footing with yours IC. 

Because based on what you stated, you definitely have the knowledge that your path will lead to the lack of knowledge. 

For heaven's sake, why would you stay on your path?

 

 

I never mentioned your path I merely stated that we should probably converse using unprovable statements on both sides, to make it fair

Your second point is only being made because of your own fear.  If we really are living in a simulation then that is far less horrific, in my mind, than a personal entity that tortures its own creations.  The difference between us here? I don't rule out any possibility that I cannot conclusively prove to be untrue.

For simulations sake, why would I move to your path? 

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Can you answer a simple question without distracting. What are those people, are they scientists or not?

As I repeated have stated it doesn't matter. The journal is or is not a scientific journal independent of the staff. That is why your question doesn't matter.

Have you figured out what peer review does? You gave a definition, but not what peer review does.

[Illyrius]

Just now, stereologist said:

As I repeated have stated it doesn't matter. The journal is or is not a scientific journal independent of the staff. That is why your question doesn't matter.

Have you figured out what peer review does? You gave a definition, but not what peer review does.

OK obviously you cant answer a simple question. Bye.

[jmccr8]

4 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

It would make perfect sense if it was the demiurge, Yaldabaoth...the embodiment ? of chaos. 

Not such a nice entity, though. Hardly one worthy of worship.

Hi Chaos

We are in agreement.

jmccr8

[stereologist]

Just now, Illyrius said:

OK obviously you cant answer a simple question. Bye.

I see you can't read and comprehend. Unlike you I posted a reason for not answering the question. You posted a really stupid question which was vague and nebulous. You don't even name people. You vaguely refer to "those people." What do you mean by "those people"?

[I'mConvinced]

1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

OK obviously you cant answer a simple question. Bye.

Just to step in where I'm not wanted.  Can I answer the questions please? 

Yes they are scientists.

Yes they have a journal.

Yes they follow a system of peer review of their own choosing.

Now, Stereologist was trying to get you to look at what exactly peer reviewing was and why it is done.  (I think) He wanted you to look at a case where peer review has proven a hypothesis and one where it proved it incorrect.  Then if you compare the peer review methods used in those cases with ones supplied by JSE you will find they do not match.  The peer review for JSE does not require them to gain independent verification from outside sources.  It only requires those that are a part of the organisation, i.e. those who want to prove the paranormal to exist, to verify the papers.

So, the point of peer review is to eliminate any errors or mistakes in a paper and grant it a verified status through means of independent testing.

[eight bits]

Illyrius

Quote

I don't care if those scientists are all in mental asylum.

An unfortunate choice of words, but yes, I'll bet you do care.

CH

Quote

First of all Dawkins is not a good writer in my opinion,

De gustibus non disputandum. Because I am a frequent critic of Dawkins, it is especially important that I acknowledge his strengths when they are relevant to the discussions in which I participate.

Quote

He actually comes up with a hypothesis, tests it, and then looks for evidence, that evidence is then put forward for consideration, much like every other scientist that there every was.

And yet the planes do not land, even though the cargo cultist carefully places one half-coconut over each ear, and securely fastens them there with sturdy vines. Just like real air traffic controllers do, only with headphones, at airports, where there are planes. Otherwise, though, it's 100% identical.

Quote

what harm is there is trying to suggest that the mind can feel who is calling on the other end of the phone?

Nobody's stopping the guy. We're just telling you what we think of his product, and why we're willing to spend those extra few bucks and install caller id at emergency services call centers. Y'know, instead of having the operator's mind feel who's calling, from where, and what the problem is.

 

[Illyrius]

Just now, I'mConvinced said:

Just to step in where I'm not wanted.  Can I answer the questions please? 

Yes they are scientists.

Yes they have a journal.

Yes they follow a system of peer review of their own choosing.

Now, Stereologist was trying to get you to look at what exactly peer reviewing was and why it is done.  (I think) He wanted you to look at a case where peer review has proven a hypothesis and one where it proved it incorrect.  Then if you compare the peer review methods used in those cases with ones supplied by JSE you will find they do not match.  The peer review for JSE does not require them to gain independent verification from outside sources.  It only requires those that are a part of the organisation, i.e. those who want to prove the paranormal to exist, to verify the papers.

So, the point of peer review is to eliminate any errors or mistakes in a paper and grant it a verified status through means of independent testing.

Thanks. Somebody reasonable at last.

[stereologist]

In addition to the parrot nonsense published in the JSE here is an editor that is an AIDS denialist.

Quote

The JSE had or has an editor named Henry Bauer. He is an AIDS denialist. He denies that there is any scientific evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV.

Great staff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Bauer

 

[stereologist]

Peer review looks at submitted papers and asks basic questions such as:

1. Does the conclusion follow from the work done?

2. Is the necessary scientific material such as methods and results included?

 

[I'mConvinced]

I've argued against Mr Sheldrake quite a bit because I can't find anyone that can replicate his work.  I always have alarm bells when things are not reproducible.  That said however I do feel the guy has had a hard time of it and in the interests of fairness we should show the times that science fails to be open minded enough:

http://skeptiko.com/88-scientific-community-unfair-to-rupert-sheldrake/

I'm actually considering re-running one of his experiments for my own interest.

[Illyrius]

22 minutes ago, stereologist said:

In addition to the parrot nonsense published in the JSE here is an editor that is an AIDS denialist.

 

Interesting man, thank you for the link.