It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Peer Review Tyranny

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

Howdy,

People often must conform to standards in order to graduate. For example, if I want to get a degree in some kind of math, I must be able to say, "Ah, 2+2=4." In order to get a degree in history, I must be able to say, "Ah, World War I ended November 11, 1918." These are facts, and yes, you must conform to facts or else people will not hire you because they think your education was likely lacking. These are pretty basic examples, but let's apply them to a general science.

First, a scientist makes an observation. Say, I find a phacopid trilobite in a rock.

Uh oh, first problem for an uneducated person, so we must stop. I need to have prior knowledge on what phacopid trilobites are so that I can identify them and communicate with other people who know about them or else what I find out about this is meaningless.

Okay, second, I need to figure out where that rock came from. That's going to be tough for an uneducated person. If I'm lucky, the trilobite will be in a rock sheet in place, not some float. If I'm not lucky, it will be float at the bottom of a hill of similar looking stones. So here I must learn the standards of optical introductory geology (to understand rock layers), mineralogy (to identify unique minerals), structural geology/field methods (to find the dip and strike), and perhaps even learn how to use an X-ray diffractometer to identify undetermined minerals...

All right, let's stop there, as my point is dragging on... So, in order to say I found a phacopid trilobite in some limestone (seems simple, right?), and say something meaningful about it so that others can understand what I am saying, I needed to learn the basics.

In essence, yes. You must learn the standards before you can get a degree, even if you later discover something that shatters one of those standards, because that education allows you to speak meaningfully to others in your field. In order to think outside of the box, one must be aware of the box.

Now, if you wish to address something in physics like... supernatural forces, well, that's not science, so it certainly would get you kicked out of a PhD program. It can't be, never will be, and could never be scientific. Science is not able to address the supernatural, plain and simple. Scientific methods are necessary in order to minimize error and continued unwillingness to reduce error seems like a good reason to not pass a person. This isn't backlash if it occurs, it is a failure to follow procedure that ends in termination.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman




posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
Nobody that's been through a graduate level program is going to agree with that assertion

How do you know?


originally posted by: peter vlar
unless they received their graduate degree from an unaccredited institution.

Getting a degree from an unaccredited institution by keeping their mouth shut?

Huh?


She tried to jump the gun and screwed everyone over because of her selfishness and ego.

Maybe, maybe not.

I haven't researched it thoroughly and have no further comment on it.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Mary Rose

In essence, yes. You must learn the standards before you can get a degree, even if you later discover something that shatters one of those standards, because that education allows you to speak meaningfully to others in your field. In order to think outside of the box, one must be aware of the box.


precisely so. without a solid foundation built on the basics of whichever discipline you endeavor towards, you simply don't have the tools in your kit to make the appropriate assessments. It also helps if you don't try to stand in someone else's box while trying to reach a higher shelf as was the case at Hueyatlaco with Virginia Steen-McIntyre.

What most people who don't have more than a basic comprehension or background seem to be unaware of is that in science, we often learn more from our errors than we do simply proving a hypothesis to be correct. For that to occur, we have to take frequent leaps of faith and go out on a limb while deviating from what is commonly accepted and its actually a pretty mundane and intrinsic part of the process. It just doesn't make for cool sounding headlines.



Now, if you wish to address something in physics like... supernatural forces, well, that's not science, so it certainly would get you kicked out of a PhD program. It can't be, never will be, and could never be scientific. Science is not able to address the supernatural, plain and simple.


I suppose that part boils down to how we want to define supernatural. There are some really freaky things going on in the land of quantum that could potentially account for some things that people believe are of supernatural origin. I don't have the appropriate background to properly comment on it in this context but according to my wife's uncle who was a noted physics professor at Columbia, it all comes down to probabilities and as our universe gets more bizarre with each passing day the more we learn about it, the math doesn't actually rule out anything being impossible. The real trick is waiting until you have the appropriate data to support your supposition prior to sticking your neck out.



Scientific methods are necessary in order to minimize error and continued unwillingness to reduce error seems like a good reason to not pass a person. This isn't backlash if it occurs, it is a failure to follow procedure that ends in termination.


Amen to that! Sometimes science is just like any other job and there are rules that apply and they need to be followed to insure some sort of uniform standard. and no not rules imposed by TPTB lol



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose

How do you know?


you're right, I erred in posting my opinion as though it were a statement of fact and I should know better. Nobody I've ever worked with or associated with professionally would agree with that assessment would have been the more appropriate reply.



Getting a degree from an unaccredited institution by keeping their mouth shut?


no, I'm referring specifically to people who claim to be practicing science but haven't received graduate degree from an accredited institution yet still claim to hold a PhD. It's actually a more common phenomena than many people believe though I've found it to be rather rampant in "creationist" or "young earth" proponents.





Maybe, maybe not.

I haven't researched it thoroughly and have no further comment on it


perhaps you should have done so before tossing it out there as an example then wouldn't you think?

There are several threads about it on ATS and a boatload of information, a LOT of it from sites making similar claims as you attributed to the Hueyatlaco site, all over the internet. I'd be more than happy to discuss it at a future point in time when you've had a chance to review the information properly though.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
Nobody I've ever worked with or associated with professionally would agree with that assessment

Because they didn't experience it, correct?

Maybe they didn't have original ideas and just conformed.


no, I'm referring specifically to people who claim to be practicing science but haven't received graduate degree from an accredited institution yet still claim to hold a PhD.

And you’re saying they did that because they tried it the mainstream way and were unwilling to keep their mouth shut, as required, or what?



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: peter vlar
Nobody I've ever worked with or associated with professionally would agree with that assessment

Because they didn't experience it, correct?

Maybe they didn't have original ideas and just conformed.


Or maybe you simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. I mean if we're going to play the "Maybe" game why not go all the way into the water?

You're the one making the claims, support your own supposition instead of shifting the burden of proof. I asked a few posts back to cite some examples but you won't or can't so what's the point?

This isn't about conformity no matter how much you want it to be. You're taking the entirety of science and trying to condense it into a 30 second sound byte from the 11 o'clock news. It's either complete ignorance or intellectually dishonest but what it is not is accurate to imply that everyone involved in science is either towing the mainstream parade float to keep food on the table or they're suffering the wrath of the brainwashed majority by being subjected to ridicule and obscurity.

There simply is not a mainstream science and and underground science. There's good science that utilizes the scientific method and then there are crackpots who think they're Mulder and want to believe so badly that no amount of data or evidence will ever convince them they could be a little off the beaten path.

I my personal experience, and ill be the first to admit I haven't used my degree for anything in over 10 years, I've never experienced, seen, heard of or heard rumor of anyone being put in the position you seem to think is as commonplace as complacency you assert is the standard of modern academia. The only time I was ever told I couldn't look into something was when there were cost factors or technological limitations that would prohibit what I was researching at the time. It had nothing to do however with the direction of my research and in the mid to late 90's what I proposed was considered radical in terms of the implications if I were correct.

If we couldn't think for ourselves and have original ideas there were plenty of people waiting for my spot in the program who were as, if not more, qualified than I was. Creativity and original ideas were applauded and rewarded as long as we could back up our hypothesis. It really isn't that difficult and nowhere near as tyrannical as you think the system is.




And you’re saying they did that because they tried it the mainstream way and were unwilling to keep their mouth shut, as required, or what?



I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I never said anything about " trying the mainstream way" or " keeping their mouths shut".

There is no "mainstream way". You either utilize the scientific method or you don't. There's a massive difference between conforming to someone else's view and recognizing that there is a need for uniformity in how we objectively look at the information. Hydeman11 has already covered that more eloquently than I could so I would suggest reading his reply at the top of this page so I'm not regurgitating covered ground.

I'm saying that they want to play at being a scientist but instead of learning from those who are skilled in their field they took the lazy and easy way out so that they could claim to be an authority on a topic they aren't an authority in. A "degree" from a non accredited institution means about as much as getting a Servsafe certificate for taking a test certifying that you know how to wash your hands before handling the meat at a fast food restaurant.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
Or maybe you simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.


Or maybe you don't.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

Seems pretty clear who knows what about the topic.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

Is that shorthand for " Yes, I'm talking out of my hind quarters and no I can't support my suppositional statements with a single citation"?

This entire conversation is a glaring example of the difference between someone trained in a particular field by professionals and an autodidact. dont get me wrong, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being self taught. You just need to be aware that going that route comes preprogrammed with some limitations. But I digress...

The person who took the time to earn their degree and learn everything they can about their chosen field is prepared to be and willing to be wrong far more than they will be correct about things whereas the average autodidact, while in many cases extremely well read, simply lacks the basic foundation in the field they are trying to discuss making it terribly difficult to know when they are way off track. Then they get really pissy when someone else attempts to show them where they are in error. The autodidact refuses to believe they could be wrong and that arrogance is almost always in full display like a prancing peacock. But what the hell, life is just like a Burger King drive thru where its your way right away, facts be damned.
edit on 8-8-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
I heard an anecdote about an archaeology professor - I don't remember the name or the university - who did research that led her to draw conclusions that were contrary to the mainstream, accepted view. I believe she ended up getting fired.


That anecdote I heard may have been in the area of astronomy, not archaeology.

All I remember is a person who was meticulously doing her job but because her conclusions didn't match dogma that was the end of it for her findings.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

ya beat me to the punch...



it's funny how so-called, 'scientists', react huh!

how they can discuss light-bending and worm-holes but refuse to acknowledge basic science they were taught...makes me wonder why they are here in the first place....overseeing?

and it's also funny how ya can't support with facts if it revolves around a certain event no one wants to discuss....lets see what happens to my post because of the fact I include information that mentions a certain day......even though it's 100% science related.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42




So even if TPTB control the process they (TPTB) must scientifically disprove why your claim doesn't hold water.



no, they must 'scientifically prove' their claims.

they are no different than any one else.

Presenting a claim within a scientific context by using NOTHING to validate their claim, is called BULL#!....no matter who says it.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: soundstyle
a reply to: peter vlar




You're the one making the claims, support your own supposition instead of shifting the burden of proof.


in debate as in Law, the dictum is those whom assert must prove.....not the ones asking for the proof.

first comes a claim of something, now there are those whom want proof supporting that claim.

is there something wrong with that?.....asking questions?????......demanding answers??????


No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions or wanting to learn more. Anybody that would say otherwise would be a little off their rocker IMO Exactly why I asked Mary Rose to provide a citation supporting her statements so forgive my confusion as to why you posit this question towards myself.









There simply is not a mainstream science and and underground science. There's good science that utilizes the scientific method and then there are crackpots who think they're Mulder






"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
NIST hypothesis crew at the 2008 Tech briefing

go watch the NIST technical briefing on WTC7

there is a PDF transcript you can follow along with....that claim I posted is on page 34.


a high school physics teach calls in at around page 16....watch them stumble and stutter after he asked his question...to which Shyam replies with.....

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"





can you tell me about this new phenomenon and how it removed the required structural resistance globally within 1.74 seconds?


My background is in anthropology so no, I can't tell you about something from a field I am not well versed in. This is why its called PEER review. Because your peers in the field related to the paper being published are the ones reviewing the data.

Maybe its because its 5 AM but Im again confused and not sure what 911 conspiracy theories have to do with the tyranny of peer review.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: soundstyle
this thread stems from another thread where a physics question is posed about a claimed brand new physics phenomenon called "low temp thermal expansion"..


Yes, two things happened in that other thread - "Ask any question you want about Physics."

My incident was:


originally posted by: Arbitrageur
. . . $20 on a DVD making false claims which you could then post without testing them yourself. .


Followed by:



originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
. . . $20 on a DVD making false claims which you could then post without testing them yourself. .

“False claims” is simply your opinion – nothing more.

How I spend my money is irrelevant.

DVDs are superb educational tools. They also allow people who are shut out by mainstream science, with their peer review tyranny, to communicate with the world.

The Science and Technology forum is about cutting edge science. Members are not required to do experiments before posting in it.





posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: soundstyle
a reply to: Mary Rose

ya beat me to the punch...



it's funny how so-called, 'scientists', react huh!


sure is...almost as funny as anecdotes that cant be supported suddenly becoming the basis of an argument against the "scientific establishment" or TPTB or whatever you prefer to call the mystical overlords I pay my dues to every year.


how they can discuss light-bending and worm-holes but refuse to acknowledge basic science they were taught...makes me wonder why they are here in the first place....overseeing?

I think most people go into science or related fields because they never outgrew that childlike curiosity and want to learn more about the world around them or in my case the world before and leading up to how we became us.


and it's also funny how ya can't support with facts if it revolves around a certain event no one wants to discuss....lets see what happens to my post because of the fact I include information that mentions a certain day......even though it's 100% science related.


That's a steaming pile of manure. there is an entire forum on ATS specifically for 911 related discussions. the onjly issue you will run into is for posting about it in the wrong forum or derailing a thread with off topic tangents regarding 911



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




That's a steaming pile of manure. there is an entire forum on ATS specifically for 911 related discussions. the onjly issue you will run into is for posting about it in the wrong forum or derailing a thread with off topic tangents regarding 911


yet what I posted is 100% science ....but because it concerns a specific event no one wants to deal with, it goes to the 'conspiracy' forum???...to automatically nullify anything said.




This is why its called PEER review. Because your peers in the field related to the paper being published are the ones reviewing the data.


what's it called when there is no allowable peer review of a new scientific claim and it goes straight to fact?
edit on 8-8-2014 by soundstyle because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: soundstyle

Yes, heaven forbid that we should have 9/11 truth.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: soundstyle
a reply to: peter vlar




That's a steaming pile of manure. there is an entire forum on ATS specifically for 911 related discussions. the onjly issue you will run into is for posting about it in the wrong forum or derailing a thread with off topic tangents regarding 911


yet what I posted is 100% science ....but because it concerns a specific event no one wants to deal with, it goes to the 'conspiracy' forum???...to automatically nullify anything said.


To the conspiracy forum? I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but this entire website is a conspiracy forum lol
Again, there's an entire forum specifically for 9/11 related discussion. Including the science for and against the conspiratorial aspects of the event.

But this is entirely off topic now and has no bearing on the peer review process and has become a soapbox for complaining about how or where you can post items.

The nature of the forum is of no consequence to the facts in play. It doesn't nullify anything stated. Facts are facts and if you can support your supposition then that's what matters in the end.


what's it called when there is no allowable peer review of a new scientific claim and it goes straight to fact?


It's called fantasy unless you have a citation showing otherwise.

If you really feel you've got solid evidence then publish a paper that supports your thesis on the matter if you feel that the science is being ignored. It's not as if papers haven't been published and peer reviewed regarding 9/11

911inacademia.com...



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join