|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 7, 2017 9:10:42 GMT
People can already decide for themselves what they think the truth is. That doesn't necessarily tell people what the truth actually is. I think I'll rely on a committee of legitimate scientists (in their field) to poke holes in an author's so-called conclusions. Otherwise, anyone would be able to post anything on any subject and call it true.......Then, you'll have my neighbor (who thinks Martians kidnapped his cat) believing all sorts of things are true.....kind of how most mis-information is propagated on the Internet. Are you really advocating a free-for-all of good/bad information and let the "buyer" beware? If you can successfully denigrate the value of study and research, then any source or opinion is as valid as any other. For example, a YouTube video thrown together with stock imagery in 20 minutes becomes as valid a citation as a twenty year field study. That's what the US shift towards anti-intellectualism is all about: elevating ignorance to the same level of value as an education. That's why we're not seeing any specific negatives about peer review here (beyond the strange implication that it keeps "someone" from making their own decisions; exactly who remains a mystery). It's not so much about any flaws in reviewing research prior to publishing, it's more about undermining the value of research in general. Wow. That was quite a ramble, Cine. Ramble on. You're a ramblin' mandolin man.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 7, 2017 9:12:06 GMT
If you can successfully denigrate the value of study and research, then any source or opinion is as valid as any other. For example, a YouTube video thrown together with stock imagery in 20 minutes becomes as valid a citation as a twenty year field study. That's what the US shift towards anti-intellectualism is all about: elevating ignorance to the same level of value as an education. That's why we're not seeing any specific negatives about peer review here (beyond the strange implication that it keeps "someone" from making their own decisions; exactly who remains a mystery). It's not so much about any flaws in reviewing research prior to publishing, it's more about undermining the value of research in general. Wow. That was quite a ramble, Cine. Ramble on. You're a ramblin' mandolin man. It is better this than harping on with the same one string.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 7, 2017 17:27:26 GMT
Intelligent Design as a name and concept was coined by the discovery institute, a creationist organisation, specifically to be creationism without mentioning any deity and instead referring to some nebulous designer. They hoped that by removing any reference to God or gods that it could therefore be taught in American public schools. This failed due to the Dover vs kitzmiller court case where this attempt at deception was exposed. In other words, there is no difference between creationism and intelligent design beyond the name. The origin of the term existed long before that, even as far back as Darwin's time. Apparently even he referred to it. "One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this"Darwin using the phrase "intelligently designed" is not the same thing at all Cody. Google cdesign proponentsists for an idea about the massively dishonest Discovery Institute. Just out of interest, did you ever speak up during biology class?
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 7, 2017 17:28:34 GMT
And the list of scientists who have published a peer-reviewed paper in an authoritative journal proving that Creationism, er, intelligent design is scientific fact is.... ,
And the purpose of "peer-review" is.... Something, something MIND CONTROL!
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 7, 2017 17:29:53 GMT
So no list available of scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers in support of Creationism, er, intelligent design then? That seems odd. Perhaps you ought to check again? Personal insults instead of a real answer just suggest you are growing annoyed since you are obliged to be defensive. But I forgive you. So if a "peer-reviewed" paper is published in an "authoritative journal" which says the earth is flat and the sun moves around it, then it becomes scientific fact, right? No ErJen, you scientific illiterate.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 7, 2017 17:31:24 GMT
So if a "peer-reviewed" paper is published in an "authoritative journal" which says the earth is flat and the sun moves around it, then it becomes scientific fact, right? No you stupid prick. A peer reviewed scientific journal would never publish such claims because they would never pass the peer review process which involves applying the scientific method to claims. It's the same reason why creationism has never passed peer review. You have absolutely no ability to evaluate the information you read or how that information and conclusions are arrived at. Not strictly true, journals have posted bullsht before. Think Andrew Wakefield and his MMR "study".
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 7, 2017 17:31:50 GMT
To the OP I for once don't believe that you believe in creationism like Erjen or co. I don't understand the purpose of you trying to rile people up with this creationist nonsense except that you wanted to troll people. You could be a much better poster if you stopped trying to pitch in for creationists and anti-vaxxers.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 7, 2017 17:33:36 GMT
And the purpose of "peer-review" is.... What would be your alternative to a peer-review? It's how many likes a YouTube video has. I'm not joking.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Jun 7, 2017 17:34:46 GMT
To the OP I for once don't believe that you believe in creationism like Erjen or co. I don't understand the purpose of you trying to rile people up with this creationist nonsense except that you wanted to troll people. You could be a much better poster if you stopped trying to pitch in for creationists and anti-vaxxers. You could be a better person if you didn't murder defenseless house cats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 17:40:32 GMT
No you stupid prick. A peer reviewed scientific journal would never publish such claims because they would never pass the peer review process which involves applying the scientific method to claims. It's the same reason why creationism has never passed peer review. You have absolutely no ability to evaluate the information you read or how that information and conclusions are arrived at. Not strictly true, journals have posted bullsht before. Think Andrew Wakefield and his MMR "study". No the flaw lay not with the peer review process but the Lancet it's editor and of course Wakefield himself.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 7, 2017 18:16:07 GMT
Viewing all with skepticism isn't the same and saying none are reliable. Do you find any reliable? How on earth is, say, a peer reviewed paper on igneous formations controlling anyone's thoughts? How do you arrive at "97%"? If Bilderberg can't even get their candidate of choice into office, how is someone maintaining the deceitful cooperation of upwards of 9 million individuals from different countries, under different governments and organizations, with diverse specialties and differing areas of focus? What is their goal exactly? Putting aside for the moment the remarkably (and incredibly self-aggrandizing) special and heroic picture this paints of you, how did you go from "having no ideas of your own" but instead "only programming" to being one of the select few to somehow escape the thought-control of this beyond-vast global conspiracy? It's been less than a month between the two statements. (Also, pause a moment here, because you pretty much just loosely employed the "most are sheeple! only I seek the truth!" device used by every cartoon depiction of conspiracy addicts in existence. They always cast themselves the hero. The poor, deluded masses, consuming what they're told while you, you lone wolf, try to "wake them from their stupor".... by copy/pasting Youtube video links on a random forum. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/c2xjcn7h5/none.gif) ) The Almanac claims to present an accurate picture of scientific phenomenon. How is it not "controlling what people think" when a research paper claiming to have the best new info on igneous rock formations is? They both present information with the same conviction. Finally, are you sure a former morning co-host of "The Today Show" is the best source for forming firm convictions regarding hidden realities?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 7, 2017 18:33:57 GMT
I don't believe for a second that she meant to say it. She slipped, and the truth came out, validating what the awakened already know. Merkel did it too a few days ago when she slipped and referred to the EU as Germany. I posted it on Politics, and someone pointed out that it could have been worse. She could have said the Greater Reich. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 7, 2017 18:46:26 GMT
Hell, I don't blame you for dodging, entirely, the vast majority of that post and focusing on the throw-away question. Every time you try to address those points your conspiracy framework seems to increase by an order of magnitude by simple necessity. What kind of shadowy cabal master had the poor foresight to let a fluffy opinion-piece talk show co-host in on the secret "truth"? They should have seen that coming. I don't watch chat shows - what was this revealed insight? What truth did this reveal? "The Awakened"! ![](https://s26.postimg.org/tek3suwt5/laugh.gif) At last, we have a name for the Heroic League of Youtube Link Posters. How did you go from "not having your own ideas" and "being programmed" to "The Awakened" in less than a month, man? Must've been one hell of a Youtube clip!
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 7, 2017 18:58:07 GMT
It was five sentences, man. You're just out of practice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 19:02:08 GMT
It was five sentences, man. You're just out of practice. Erjen's posts have always been short,to maximize his drinking time.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 7, 2017 19:04:29 GMT
tpfkar I'd trust him around any cats these days. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) You around kids, not so much. They know that yet they keep bringing it up...implying I had an interest in the children. It was an insult against the parent. The guy lived with his parents and I wondered how they all fit in the house at night when they slept. I wondered if some had to sleep in the garage or elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 7, 2017 19:13:43 GMT
Hell, I don't blame you for dodging, entirely, the vast majority of that post and focusing on the throw-away question. Every time you try to address those points your conspiracy framework seems to increase by an order of magnitude by simple necessity. What kind of shadowy cabal master had the poor foresight to let a fluffy opinion-piece talk show co-host in on the secret "truth"? They should have seen that coming. I don't watch chat shows - what was this revealed insight? What truth did this reveal? "The Awakened"! ![](https://s26.postimg.org/tek3suwt5/laugh.gif) At last, we have a name for the Heroic League of Youtube Link Posters. How did you go from "not having your own ideas" and "being programmed" to "The Awakened" in less than a month, man? Must've been one hell of a Youtube clip! As someone who follows mysticism teachings, having Erjen imply that he is awakened is, well really I just don't have words.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 20:42:39 GMT
What would be your alternative to a peer-review? It's how many likes a YouTube video has. I'm not joking. If Erjen needed surgery, I wonder if he would prefer an elitist Doctor who went to medical school and learned all that peer-reviewed scientific stuff, or one who based his medical knowledge on youtube conspiracy videos?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 7, 2017 21:56:48 GMT
It's how many likes a YouTube video has. I'm not joking. If Erjen needed surgery, I wonder if he would prefer an elitist Doctor who went to medical school and learned all that peer-reviewed scientific stuff, or one who based his medical knowledge on youtube conspiracy videos? C:\> ("medical knowledge on youtube conspiracy videos" -gt @graham ) True C:\>
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 7, 2017 23:30:03 GMT
If Erjen needed surgery, I wonder if he would prefer an elitist Doctor who went to medical school and learned all that peer-reviewed scientific stuff, or one who based his medical knowledge on youtube conspiracy videos? C:\> ("medical knowledge on youtube conspiracy videos" -gt @graham ) True C:\> I used YouTube to figure out how to get into the Kremlin in Raid Over Moscow. 👍 After taking down the two robots with bouncing Frisbee grenades, I defeated the evil Commies.
|
|