Einstein and peer review. (I've never been published in Nature, but...)

[Jorge]

Stating the ICR would not use a constant recession rate for the moon while quoting them doing exactly that looked like a blunder to me.

Roy

I'm going to control myself and be super-nice here.

That was NOT a "blunder". I stated that they (and others including myself) have at times used a constant recession rate and I also explained why. Ergo, you either have a severe reading handicap or your 'honesty' makes Bernie Madoff a choir boy compared to you.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

I'm going to control myself and be super-nice here.

That was NOT a "blunder". I stated that they (and others including myself) have at times used a constant recession rate and I also explained why. Ergo, you either have a severe reading handicap or your 'honesty' makes Bernie Madoff a choir boy compared to you.

Jorge

Oops, Jorge caught in another porky!

The BC groups that I know of - ICR, CRS, CMI, AiG and a few others - do not make this error, i.e., they are aware of the non-linear recession rate and a number of papers posted on their sites testify to this - look it up yourself.

Jorge "blunder a day" Fernandez strikes again!

[Roy]

I'm going to control myself and be super-nice here.

That was NOT a "blunder". I stated that they (and others including myself) have at times used a constant recession rate and I also explained why. Ergo, you either have a severe reading handicap or your 'honesty' makes Bernie Madoff a choir boy compared to you.

What you actually said:

As to your "linear extrapolation" nonsense: some - I repeat, some - people (BCs or other) may be doing this erroneously (i.e., without qualification - see below). If so, they are committing an error since the rate is definitely non-linear - we get that from solid physics. The BC groups that I know of - ICR, CRS, CMI, AiG and a few others - do not make this error, i.e., they are aware of the non-linear recession rate and a number of papers posted on their sites testify to this - look it up yourself.

Jorge Fernandez, you are a liar.

That you later changed your story to avoid embarrassment does not erase history.

Roy

[HMS_Beagle]

What you actually said:Jorge Fernandez, you are a liar.

That you later changed your story to avoid embarrassment does not erase history.

Roy

That's what boggles my mind. For some unknown reason Jorge thinks he can make up stories when what he actually wrote is still there easily available for anyone to check. I'm starting to think Jorge may have some emotional stability issues. He certainly has a hard time dealing with reality.

[Omega Red]

Just as I had predicted - NOT A SINGLE "blunder" is actually listed.
So, once again, I was right all along: nothing more than slanderous, fly-by spit-balling.

Just curious, was 'slander and fly-by spit-balling' part of your dissertation defense?

Jorge

It has been clearly documented several times where your blunders are and you still refuse to acknowledge them, but prefer instead to act as though they simply never happened or try to twist the facts to make you appear in a better light. It’s a disastrous approach when you want people to believe that you have done serious research on the issue of science and theology, when you cannot even get the basics correct and bluntly refuse to acknowledge that you made mistakes. It would be better if you changed your username to The Serpent and then future readers, especially the Christians, will be warned from the outset what to expect from you.

I find your mindset abhorrent, yet fascinating. Have you no shame, no remorse? Or is it just expressed in private, so that you can move on without feeling guilty in public forums? Rather than wallow in your detestable debating practices, try reading my post again.

There are of course more examples that fly in the face of the claim “that paper paper [sic] will be toast before it even gets to 1st base of PR regardless of its scientific merits”:


• W.J. Ouweneel, “Developmental genetics of homoeosis”, Adv Genet., 18, 179-248 (1976) – fruit fly developmental anomalies
• S. Scherer, "Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport", J. Theor. Bio., 104, 289-299 (1983) - evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport an unsolved problem in theoretical biology
• G.R. Lambert, "Enzymic editing mechanisms and the origin of biological information transfer", J Theor Biol., 7, 387-403 (1984) – DNA processes should have high error rates without designer editing enzymes
• R.V. Gentry, "Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective", Science, 184, 62-66 (1974) - unclear formation mechanisms of halos in currently accepted cosmological models of Earth formation

Do you still conclude that those papers I listed "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview"?

[Jorge]

What you actually said:Jorge Fernandez, you are a liar.

That you later changed your story to avoid embarrassment does not erase history.

Roy

'Violent' physical contact is almost never a proper solution. "Almost" never is not "never" - sometimes a slap in the face is precisely what is needed (as when a person becomes uncontrollably hysterical and needs to 'snap' out of it).

Okay, with that thought in mind, consider yourself slapped! Slapped hard! Slapped silly!

If anyone here is a LIAR that person is you and I will now prove that claim:

Note the paragraph that you took OUT OF CONTEXT - I've highlighted the relevant section:

As to your "linear extrapolation" nonsense: some - I repeat, some - people (BCs or other) may be doing this erroneously (i.e., without qualification - see below). If so, they are committing an error since the rate is definitely non-linear - we get that from solid physics. The BC groups that I know of - ICR, CRS, CMI, AiG and a few others - do not make this error, i.e., they are aware of the non-linear recession rate and a number of papers posted on their sites testify to this - look it up yourself.

What you did in order to LIE was to omit that "qualification" from my post.
Here is that qualification that you omitted so as to LIE:

All of that said, I myself have used a linear approximation using the present recession rate, here's why: Since the present rate is slower then using the present rate sets an upper age limit. It turns out that this upper age limit is approximately three billion years LESS than what the age of moon is according to you people (roughly 4.6 gigayears). That's quite a gap!

Now, I will be very impressed if you or any of your ideological comrades here can explain your way out of that one.

Needless to say, the requested explanation never came.

Spelling all of this out even further, if the linear rate yields an age of 2 billion years, and the non-linear rate yields an age of 1.5 billion years, then the linear rate would be the UPPER age limit (which is why both myself and these organizations have used the linear rate - to set an UPPER limit). That was the "qualification" that I had made and that you so dishonestly omitted in your post.

You called me a "liar" in public - I expect an apology in public also.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Now, I will be very impressed if you or any of your ideological comrades here can explain your way out of that one.

Jorge

The explanation is simple. You made a big blunder claiming that ICR doesn't use linear extrapolation in their lunar recession claims when they did (and still do) on their web site.

When caught in your blunder you tried to lie your way out of it, just like you're doing now. Didn't work though.

Lying to save face never works for you Jorge but the real funny part is you're still way too stupid to realize it.

[shunyadragon]

Woo hoo. Fame at last. (Albeit somewhat transient) I've never been published in Nature, but as of just now I *have* had a tweet favourited by a Nature senior editor! Just had to say that...

The topic was peer review, BTW; and a fascinating little story about Einstein.

Formal peer review is considered an essential part of modern science work, with good reason IMO. But it is a fairly recent development, becoming common somewhere around the mid twentieth century. There's always been plenty of peer review once scientific ideas get out and other scientists get to evaluate them. What's a bit more recent is peer review as an initial gateway to be passed before publication.

Anyhoo, in 1936 Einstein submitted a paper to The Physical Review, entitled "Do Gravitational Waves Exist", in which he present a "proof" that gravitational waves do not exist. The editor was concerned about the paper, and sent it out to another expert (Howard P Robertson) for his evaluation. This was not a normal practice; anything from Einstein tended to get published automatically. Indeed, this may have been only occasion Einstein ever had to deal with peer review at a journal!

Tate evidently felt the need of some expert comment. Robertson identified errors in the paper and returned a 10 page comment describing them. Tate then returned the manuscript to Einstein, along with the reviewer comments, and indicated that he would be glad to have Einstein's further comment.

Einstein took umbrage and responded with a letter that is now famous in the annals of peer review:

Source: Einstein

Dear Sir,

We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed. I see no reason to address the in any case erroneous comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere.
Respectfully,

P.S. Mr. Rosen, who has left for the Soviet Union, has authorized me to represent him in this matter.

© Copyright Original Source

The irony of this is that the review was correct, and Einstein was wrong. Einstein DID publish elsewhere; indeed he never published with The Physical Review again. However, by the time of the publication he had spoken directly with Professor Robertson and they discussed the issues. Einstein recognized and acknowledged the errors and made extensive corrections; in particular no longer claiming to have disproved gravitational waves.

The eventual publication, ironically, included this acknowledgement as a note to the paper.

Source: Einstein

The second part of this paper was considerably altered by me after the departure of Mr Rosen for Russia since we had originally interpreted our results erroneously. I wish to thank my colleague Professor Robertson for his friendly assistance in the clarification of the original error. I thank also Mr Hoffman for kind assistance in translation.

© Copyright Original Source

There's a lot more on this amusing affair at Einstein Verses the Physical Review (published in Physics Today, Sept 2005, pp 43-48) The note and acknowledgement I quoted from Einstein and Oppenheimer by Silvan S. Schweber (Harvard Uni Press 2009).

I believe the concept of peer review actually began with Charles Darwin when he delayed his publication of the 'The Origin of Species,' because he had his original papers and the transcript reviewed by his fellow scientists, Hooker, Lyell, and papers jointly submitted with Wallace to Linnean Society of London. It is true that even though the papers were submitted to the Linnean Society of London prior to publication it is unlikely that the society extensively reviewed the papers, because the peer review process was not yet in place in the Linnean Society of London.

[Jorge]

The explanation is simple. You made a big blunder claiming that ICR doesn't use linear extrapolation in their lunar recession claims when they did (and still do) on their web site.

When caught in your blunder you tried to lie your way out of it, just like you're doing now. Didn't work though.

Lying to save face never works for you Jorge but the real funny part is you're still way too stupid to realize it.

Bears repeating :

"'Violent' physical contact is almost never a proper solution. "Almost" never is
not "never" - sometimes a slap in the face is precisely what is needed (as when
a person becomes uncontrollably hysterical and needs to 'snap' out of it).

Okay, with that thought in mind consider yourself slapped! Slapped hard! Slapped silly!"


Without any qualification needed, Beagle boy is unquestionably amongst the most
dishonest individuals that it has been my displeasure of meeting on the internet.
I'm just very happy and thank God that he is geographically far away from me.

Jorge

[sylas]

I believe the concept of peer review actually began with Charles Darwin when he delayed his publication of the 'The Origin of Species,' because he had his original papers and the transcript reviewed by his fellow scientists, Hooker, Lyell, and papers jointly submitted with Wallace to Linnean Society of London. It is true that even though the papers were submitted to the Linnean Society of London prior to publication it is unlikely that the society extensively reviewed the papers, because the peer review process was not yet in place in the Linnean Society of London.

Um... the story as I have heard it is that Darwin was notorious for delaying publication of Origin, endlessly polishing, extending, revising, etc; just on his own behalf, for twenty years; despite lots of people encouraging him to publish. Then he was sent the manuscript from Wallace, and saw that his ideas were not unique... and submitted both his and Wallace's papers together -- with the encouragement of Lyell and Hooker. I think it is a big stretch to link the encouragement from Lyell and Hooker with any notion of pre publication review.

Cheers -- sylas

[sylas]

An additional note: just a couple of hours ago one of the Scientific American blogs put out a blog post on "Open Peer Review". It mentions (amongst other examples) the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics open review process that I described earlier in the thread.

For those interested, it can be found at Introduction to open peer review (by Hadas Sherma). She also has a previous post in April: Introduction to Traditional Peer Review.

The April blog post also looks at the history; showing that peer review originated well before Darwin wrote Origin. She identifies the origins of the modern peer review process with Royal Society of Edinburgh, which introduced scholarly review for publication of medical articles in 1731; though the article also notes that it was not in general use until the latter part of the twentieth century -- which helps explain why Einstein found the notion of being reviewed so presumptuous.

Cheers -- sylas

[HMS_Beagle]

Bears repeating :

I got caught lying about my many blunders again and all my bluster won't save me from the embarrassment.

Jorge

Fixed it for you Jorge.

[shunyadragon]

Um... the story as I have heard it is that Darwin was notorious for delaying publication of Origin, endlessly polishing, extending, revising, etc; just on his own behalf, for twenty years; despite lots of people encouraging him to publish. Then he was sent the manuscript from Wallace, and saw that his ideas were not unique... and submitted both his and Wallace's papers together -- with the encouragement of Lyell and Hooker. I think it is a big stretch to link the encouragement from Lyell and Hooker with any notion of pre publication review.

Cheers -- sylas

Disagree, of course the formal 'peer review' by the publication was essentially non-existent at the time, but his consultations with Wallace, Hooker and Lyell prior to publication do represent a 'peer review process. There, of course, are similarities in the views of Wallace and Darwin, but it is Darwin's research that remains at the heart of the publications. Sending the manuscript to Wallace first, represents part of a peer review process before publication.

[shunyadragon]

An additional note: just a couple of hours ago one of the Scientific American blogs put out a blog post on "Open Peer Review". It mentions (amongst other examples) the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics open review process that I described earlier in the thread.

For those interested, it can be found at Introduction to open peer review (by Hadas Sherma). She also has a previous post in April: Introduction to Traditional Peer Review.

The April blog post also looks at the history; showing that peer review originated well before Darwin wrote Origin. She identifies the origins of the modern peer review process with Royal Society of Edinburgh, which introduced scholarly review for publication of medical articles in 1731; though the article also notes that it was not in general use until the latter part of the twentieth century -- which helps explain why Einstein found the notion of being reviewed so presumptuous.

Cheers -- sylas

I did not say Charles Darwin was necessarily the first, but The existence of an informal process 'not in general use' similar to what was in place in the Linnean Society of London, where Darwin published did not functioning like a true [peer review process.' I believe Charles Darwin requested a review by Wallace for the book, and collaboration in articles to be published related to the book.

[robrecht]

I did not say Charles Darwin was necessarily the first ...

Easy mistake for someone to misconsture what you actually said, ie, "I believe the concept of peer review actually began with Charles Darwin when he ..."