Replies

Projection by ad hominem placemarker.

First recorded "slow motion" snapback placemarker.

Let's examine your post in more detail.

I suppose your extensive knowledge of the quality of scientific journals and the mechanics of the peer-review process comes from having read thousands of scientific articles published in dozens or hundreds of peer-review journals, and from having participated extensively in the peer-review process, either as an author or a reviewer?

ad hominem. One can be aware of controversies within a particular field, and the personality conflicts which simmer beneath the surface, contaminating the supposedly pristine peer review process, by reading on various blogs; by reading news stories on scientific fraud; or by listening to friends and co-workers who have been involved in the whole shebang, without any requirement that one has been involved in the process.

The problem is more subtle than you suggest however, on the principle that "he who is closest to a problem has the greatest likelihood to know all about it, but also the greatest temptation to hide his own personal interests in it."

Those who practice science, whose livelihood depends on it, and whose career, professional pride, professional standing, and self-esteem are all wrapped up in it, are likely going to be the ones least likely to own up to cracks in the edifice; least of all to philistines who aren't capable of understanding anyway.

Or are those just talking points you found in some “creation science” blog-screed floating around the internet?

Nice use of the 'heads I win, tails you lose' : when evos here cite arguments lifted straight from atheist talking points, they are allowed to hide behind "SCIENCE": but when people attack the actual practice of science as compared to the PR, they must be derided has having merely copied by rote from creationist sites.

Again, it need not hold, it does not follow.

It is instructive that such an accusation is the first thing you fly to.

If you bother to look, you can find postings by avowed (contradiction in terms) atheists talking about partisanship within science, and politics openly interjecting itself into science -- at the hand of DEM Congresscritters. (No fundies involved.)

P.S. Using various sizes and types of font in different colors doesn’t make a weak, baseless argument into a strong one. In fact, it just highlights the fact that you have nothing substantive to say. Likewise with personal attacks and insults to people’s intelligence.

Actually, using sizes and types of font and color is highly recommended to avoid putting people to sleep, by those who are professionals in corporate marketing and communications.

Once again, Dilbert to the rescue:

Cheers!

Projection by ad hominem placemarker.

Actually, using sizes and types of font and color is highly recommended to avoid putting people to sleep, by those who are professionals in corporate marketing and communications.

Not hardly.

May I draw your attention to Quix's posts #345 and #346, where he/she used huge fonts, garish colors, and irrelevant pictures to essentially scream at me, like a 2 year old throwing a tantrum? And where the whole gist of both posts can essentially be distilled down into, "OMG i cnat belive ur so stoopid adn u sya ur such a smrt sinetst LOLOLOL !!!!!!1111elevenone"

I really don't appreciate being the recipient of such posts, and my (albeit somewhat sarcastic) reply reflected both the fact that the entire basis of Quix's argument sounded like it had been lifted straight from some "creation science" screed, and that any kind of further discussion with him/her is impossible.

exDemMom: I suppose your extensive knowledge of the quality of scientific journals and the mechanics of the peer-review process comes from having read thousands of scientific articles published in dozens or hundreds of peer-review journals, and from having participated extensively in the peer-review process, either as an author or a reviewer?

Makes you wonder what "peer reviewed" journals she's been placing her "faith" in doesn't it?

Even atheists have to live by faith (in their "peer reviewed" journals one supposes) -- a faith that demands that there is no God, and as internally contradictory as the Darwinism is that they use to affirm their faith ...

"Darwinian Dissonance?" by Paul A. Dernavich (as published in "Internet Infidels" 2003)

... it must be disconcerting to see how often this "faith" finds it self to have been sorely mis-placed.

In cancer science, many "discoveries" don't hold up

Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct

Like exDemMom, I too am a professional biochemist. Unlike her though I have advanced in my career to a place well-beyond simply mixing the buffers, prepping the samples, running the gels, taking the Polaroids, and creating "poster sessions" for coffee break discussions at scientific gatherings.

Among doing things like seeing to it that the science supporting a regulatory marketing application is robust enough to support the label claims of the therapy, or resolving regulatory compliance issues in which pharma firms often find themselves, the firm which I own is called upon to sift through and identify what is reproducible science from that which is merely irreproducible wishful thinking and other one-off bench-top successes.

This service is performed on behalf of clients who are hedge funds and investment houses looking to place what are in most cases millions of dollars in what some calling themselves scientists have billed as therapeutic and technological advancements in health care. The technologies I evaluate span from novel biologics and vaccines, to pharmaceutical formulations of all kinds, to medical devices and drug-device combinations thereof

PhDs parade in front of me routinely and it astounds me to see how unpolished many of them are in their presentations, and so parochial in their interests that they are often unable to demonstrate a basic command of their scientific rationale.

Some theparies I have evaluated are truly promising medical advancements and worth my clients' financial investment. Many simply aren't. The science behind the claims all too often and as the article above describes just isn't all that robust.

Still, in all my years of reading thousands of published and non-published ostensibly "peer reviewed" studies and clinical studies involving a host of wonder-products and therapies, not one paper I have ever encountered or presentation I have ever heard made has tried to credit their findings on the basis of having anything to do with evolutionary premise or Darwinian dogma.

One may observe that what ever they think they know about their biochemistry, they certainly don't rely on Darwin-speak to prop it up.

One might suspect that the reason for this is because they actually hope to get their projects funded, and to do so one will have to actually stick with observable, testable, reproducible science!

FReegards!