Did some U.K. Researchers just discover life was seeded by aliens?

a reply to: gortex
a reply to: soylent green is people

Just a quick question for the pair of you...

Just how does One go about getting their work "peer reviewed?"

Is there a company. or organization somewhere that does that? Or is it a completely voluntary process that allows one scientist to review the work of another IF he feels like it? Or is it simply a mechanism to get One's work published in a specific periodical?

In other words; "Can you show the organization behind the peer review process"

a reply to: tanka418

All it entails is submitting your work to a scientific journal for other scientists to check your findings , The Journal of Cosmology isn't really a scientific journal , or at least a scientific journal of repute.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: tanka418

All it entails is submitting your work to a scientific journal for other scientists to check your findings , The Journal of Cosmology isn't really a scientific journal , or at least a scientific journal of repute.

So...no organization behind the process...gotcha!

All One need do is submit their work, and IF the publishers select it and request "reviews" from some unknown "pool"? of scientists, then maybe One's work might get the coveted "peer review". So...its a damn lottery?

IF science actually worked that way, we'd still be using vacuum tubes!

The method science actually uses is laboratories sharing experiments and data, and not through some "trade rag" either...I used to be a big reader of the IEEE magazine, just such a "journal" as you are referring. The way these sort of things are shared in the Technology sector is via "white paper", I would be quite surprised to learn that say Astronomy is any different, or indeed Physics or Mathematics...the "peer review" is fantasy...and only required by those who are trying to resist data and reality.

I really loved the "Journal" snobbery...seriously rich!

originally posted by: tanka418
the "peer review" is fantasy...and only required by those who are trying to resist data and reality.

The ignorance is strong with this one...

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: tanka418
the "peer review" is fantasy...and only required by those who are trying to resist data and reality.

The ignorance is strong with this one...

I'm afraid it is you who is showing his ignorance my friend. What I'm talking about is a very simple matter of information flow. Reality; information, science, engineering simply can not wait for your "peer review" fantasy. While it ay be nice, it simply is too slow, and not needed...seriously, any scientist or engineer worth is salt does not need his fellow to explain the science contained in a White Paper.

Meanwhile, insisting on the peer review is only useful in holding back science and engineering, and helping to keep many in the dark. It also prevents valid data from being "seen", analyzed, etc. In short; it is short of a mechanism to prevent Denying Ignorance.

In any case; the "peer review" method is simply too slow to allow for the progress I've seen in my lifetime...

a reply to: tanka418

IF science actually worked that way, we'd still be using vacuum tubes!

Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.
undsci.berkeley.edu...

Which is why Chandra Wickramasinghe and Milton Wainwright publish in the Journal of Cosmology.

the "peer review" is fantasy...and only required by those who are trying to resist data and reality.

I really loved the "Journal" snobbery...seriously rich!

Then maybe you should research the Journal of Cosmology and its reputation before commenting , if you did perhaps you wouldn't see it as a matter of Journal snobbery but more about journal credibility.

The Journal of Cosmology is no stranger to bold claims. Two years ago, for instance, it published a controversial study that purported to have found evidence of fossilized life in meteorites.

That paper was not well received by outside scientists, some of whom questioned the journal's credibility as well.

"It isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics obsessed with the idea of [Fred] Hoyle and [Chandra] Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth," P.Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, wrote on his popular science blog Pharyngula at the time.

Wickramasinghe is a co-author of the new stratospheric diatom paper, a fact that could color its reception in the wider scientific community.
www.space.com...

a reply to: gortex

Well thank you for confirming what I've been saying...the peer review process is far too time consuming for it to have any practical role in real science. Except for one last detail, that I for got and your graphic stated...the whole is subject to the subjective, and biased "editorial" acceptance.

Moore's law has no "room" for such childish antics; yet, scientists and engineers do like their minute of fame, so it persists. Yet your "Howard Marshals", and "Steve Bissets" (developers of the machine that made the microprocessor ubiquitous) find little need for such "carrying ons" and to this day rely on the white paper, along with the rest of Technology and Science.

You should look at your "peer review" process and actually apply some of that ole "critical thinking" many of y'all are so about...this process is utilized by a comparatively small segment of the community. Today we se the "White Paper" to great effect, and it seems to serve the whole of the community (science and technology) quite well...I get dozens of them every week...and almost never receive a "peer reviewed" article...hell there are companies set up for the distribution of the White Paper.

Just how many "peer reviewed" articles do you suppose get published each year? I can virtually promise you that it's not the 1000's needed for the scientific and technological progress we've seen since oh say; 1970...

Oh, and by the way; this wee bit of distraction is not and never was about your scientists in question. Although, what we appear to find there is a couple of PhD Astrophysicists who are being questioned by journalists, and misunderstood by laymen. And, I too find their "findings" in a bit of a misstated fog of misunderstanding.

Further, IF you were to actually think about it; they do make a good attempt at demonstrating that there could be life today on Venus.

ETA: I should add; the "peer review" process is quite different than having One's results confirmed by experiment by others...which IS a part of the backbone of Science and technology.

Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe says: “It lends very strong support to the theory of cometary panspermia”.

Yes, we know he does.

a reply to: tanka418

Well thank you for confirming what I've been saying...the peer review process is far too time consuming for it to have any practical role in real science.

I didn't.

You should look at your "peer review" process and actually apply some of that ole "critical thinking" many of y'all are so about...this process is utilized by a comparatively small segment of the community.

There were about 28,100 active scholarly peer-reviewed journals in mid 2012, collectively publishing about 1.8–1.9 million articles a year. The number of articles published each year and the number of journals have both grown steadily for over two centuries, by about 3% and 3.5% per year respectively.
www.stm-assoc.org...

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: gortex

Well thank you for confirming what I've been saying...the peer review process is far too time consuming for it to have any practical role in real science.

It's a deliberate process, but it isn't an exorbitantly "time consuming" process.

Besides, why is speed necessarily important? I understand that researchers don't want to have someone else "beat them" to publication of important findings, but in the grand scheme of discovery, why would it be more important for Chandra Wickramasinghe and Milton Wainwright to publish quickly without peer review rather than publishing in the slightly slower manner of having their peers give them feedback and critiques on their methodologies and on the manner by which they reached their conclusions?

I'm not even a professional scientist, but I had some obvious questions regarding Chandra Wickramasinghe's methodologies in the past that did not seem to be adequately addressed in the publication of his findings. For example, regarding the claim he made about algae-like organisms found in the stratosphere, I was not adequately convinced by his published findings that the algae were not terrestrial in nature. He made claims that there are no known mechanisms for those organisms to get to the stratospheric if they were terrestrial, but he didn't provide any evidence to back up those claims that such a natural mechanism does not exist.

A peer review of that paper would have asked him to rule out the possibility of terrestrial organisms finding their way into the stratosphere before claiming "they can't, thus they are extraterrestrial".

Here's the claim I'm talking about:
'Seeds Of Life' Collected During Perseid Meteor Shower: Scientists Say Algae 'Can Only Have Come From Space'

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: tanka418


I didn't.

Oh...but you did!

You should look at your "peer review" process and actually apply some of that ole "critical thinking" many of y'all are so about...this process is utilized by a comparatively small segment of the community.

Research behaviour and motivation
9. Despite a transformation in the way journals are published, researchers’ core
motivations for publishing appear largely unchanged, focused on funding and
furthering the author’s career (page 49).

From your link...it would seem that the motivation for the "peer review" is not science, but rather the scientist's ego and of course money...

Your link goes on to say that most scientists have decreased their reading time from around 45 min to an hour to probably less than 1/2 hour...

You should probably quit now, you're digging yourself a hole you won't be able to get out of, and proving my point in the process. What we are seeing with the "peer review" is a process that isn't motivated by science, but rather success at the expense of the science. The motivations are the scientists ego, and his need for more money.

Meanwhile real science, research continues; fueled not by the "peer review", but rather simpler, infinitely more honest, mechanisms like the White Paper, and simple communication. Perhaps this is something that needs to be experienced first hand...

a reply to: tanka418

From your link...it would seem that the motivation for the "peer review" is not science, but rather the scientist's ego and of course money...

Shock , scientists want to secure funding for their research and further their careers.

You should probably quit now, you're digging yourself a hole you won't be able to get out of, and proving my point in the process.

I should probably quit now because it's pointless banging my head against a brick wall.

originally posted by: soylent green is people
It's a deliberate process, but it isn't an exorbitantly "time consuming" process.

But, it is...necessarily! Even in todays electronic world it still takes time to communicate, it takes time for the reviewer to "get around to it", it takes time to formulate a response and communicate it...so...it becomes quite exorbitant waste of time...and all for a "buck"...

Besides, why is speed necessarily important?

You have misinterpreted what I'm trying to say...the speed isn't necessary, but the rapidity still exists and is evidenced by the speed of progress science and technology have been demonstrating for the past 40 years or more. I suppose its not really fair of me to expect you to understand the complexities of just modern computing, and the progress in Physics and Electrical Engineering required to produce the modern microchip. Never mind the amount of work required to perform production line testing, or implementation of those devices.

Again, IF we relied on the peer review process, we would still be using vacuum tubes, and that machine in front of you wouldn't even be a "pipe dream" yet.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: tanka418

From your link...it would seem that the motivation for the "peer review" is not science, but rather the scientist's ego and of course money...

Shock , scientists want to secure funding for their research and further their careers.

You should probably quit now, you're digging yourself a hole you won't be able to get out of, and proving my point in the process.

I should probably quit now because it's pointless banging my head against a brick wall.

Actually, all you are showing is the creation and building of an "industry" the specializes in the making of money at the expense of real science. It would seem that perhaps the peer review should be scuttled, and removed from the scientific equation...so that it no longer causes harm to that science and future learning...

ETA: How many peer reviewed articles do you suppose it takes to learn how to detect an exoplanet? Answer: none.
How many peer reviewed articles do you suppose it takes to understand "how" to sense and analyze an exoplanet's atmosphere?
How many White papers do you suppose it took? (several)

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: tanka418
I should probably quit now because it's pointless banging my head against a brick wall

Indeed. A for effort, though. And don't worry, not everyone reading is quite as dense as said brick wall.

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: tanka418
I should probably quit now because it's pointless banging my head against a brick wall

Indeed. A for effort, though. And don't worry, not everyone reading is quite as dense as said brick wall.

I just had a thought...

Something you might try; stop mischaracterizing everything, and actually look at it with a clear mind, and clear logic. That is something I've never see you do...

unless they left details before they left probably didnt happen that way despite her best guesses

Meanwhile, the concept of biological activity in multiple locations within our own Solar System has rapidly gained ground, along with the concept that natural forces can fling spore-carrying rocks from active biospheres to new environments ready for seeding. I've watched this absolute revolution of panspermia-2.0 take hold in just about two decades. I hope you guys have noticed.

www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: soylent green is people
They basically just say "wouldn't it be cool if this metallic sphere was ET in origin?" or (another pet hypothesis of theirs) "wouldn't it be cool if the diatoms we think we found in the stratosphere came from deep space", but then offer no real verifiable evidence to back up these "wouldn't it be cool if..." statements other than wild speculation.

Yes, I completely agree with you here.

It reminds me of watching Ancient Aliens. In fact, this would totally fit one of those Giorgio A. Tsoukalos memes. "Unknown metallic sphere found in atmosphere .... Clear evidence of Panspermia." Uh, what!?