The reality of "peer reviews" in cosmology

[Right Divider]

Pristine theory of peer reviews	Reality of peer reviews
Expert and completely unbiased scientists are always ready to thoroughly and carefully review all theories in complete and full detail.	Expert and completely unbiased scientists prefer to actually do scientific investigation and analysis and find peer review to be beneath them.
Peer reviewers are all the top scientists in the field of the theory being reviewed.	Peer reviewers are lower level scientists that have time on their hands.
Theories to be reviewed are defined in intricate details leaving nothing out.	Theories about the origin of the universe and its constituent parts are highly speculative and are therefore not able to be analyzed in the same way as other more practical scientific endeavors.
Peer reviews are always perfect and produce nothing but 100% accurate results.	Peer reviews are subject to human error and are often highly biased in favor of the “group think”.

 

[Right Divider]

Jonahdog Two SPAM posts and nothing of any value... your MO. Contribute or get lost.

 

[Jonahdog]

Jonahdog Two SPAM posts and nothing of any value... your MO. Contribute or get lost.

Well not quite spam. I am still trying to find out where the radioactive elements in the earth came from, one of your prior threads suggested you had some info. And I asked for a citation to your opening post in this thread. Or if you developed that yourself, just let us know. I'm only asking for clarification, something wrong with that? The concept of peer review is basic to modern science publication. I know it exists I know how it is supposed to work. If it has actual major flaws please enlighten me.

i just realized your post is
addressed to "peer review in cosmology ". But aren't you raising a peer review issue with all science?
why limit it to "cosmology"? Why not peer review to all intellectual studies?

 

[Right Divider]

Well not quite spam.

Totally spam.

I am still trying to find out where the radioactive elements in the earth came from, one of your prior threads suggested you had some info.

Wrong thread. You know that there are rules about chasing users around in TOL.

And I asked for a citation to your opening post in this thread.

So you think that everything needs a "citation"? What stupidity.

Or if you developed that yourself, just let us know. I'm only asking for clarification, something wrong with that?

It was clearly an informed opinion.

The concept of peer review is basic to modern science publication.

There are different kinds of science. Some kinds are easy to support with experimentation and review. Others, like cosmological models, are highly speculative (as are models for many types of singular events, especially in the extremely [supposedly] distance past).

Peer reviews were the reviewer can run repeatable experiments are far more effective than those for singular, unrepeatable events.

Cosmological models are HIGHLY speculative and peer reviewing such HIGHLY speculative models is not the same as peer reviewing something that is actually testable.

I know it exists I know how it is supposed to work. If it has actual major flaws please enlighten me.

:juggle:

Is your Googler not working?

i just realized your post is
addressed to "peer review in cosmology ".

Aren't you the observant one? And that only took you a whole day. :french:

But aren't you raising a peer review issue with all science?
why limit it to "cosmology"? Why not peer review to all intellectual studies?

See above.

 

[Right Divider]

So you made up the pros and cons of peer reviewing cosmology.

If you have a point to make about what I wrote, you should make it. Otherwise we can see that you're just a troll as usual.

Well, reading this thread so far is about 5 minutes I will never get back.

Too bad for you.

but it is fun making things up, and posting it as if you really know what you are talking about, isnt it.

Your trolling shows that you know nothing and cannot make a point.

 

[Sherman]

I can disable a member's ability to post in this section. Please do not come into threads just to marginalize the topic or discussion.

 

[Jonahdog]

I can disable a member's ability to post in this section. Please do not come into threads just to marginalize the topic or discussion.

Right Divider posted critical of peer review in cosmology. I asked questions and wanted to know where he got that information. I suspect from his non-answers he is the source. But he is unwilling to admit that. I also asked later, if he had an issue with peer review in all areas of intellectual pursuit. Based on his answer that may or may not be the case, he tends to be a bit weasely and snarky. He gets away with that because he is a true believer, I recognize there are favored ones on this site.

 

[Right Divider]

Right Divider posted critical of peer review in cosmology.

And this upsets you because?....

I asked questions and wanted to know where he got that information. I suspect from his non-answers he is the source.

I answered that this was my informed opinion as opposed your uniformed complaints about me.

But he is unwilling to admit that.

You are either illiterate or lying... or both.

I also asked later, if he had an issue with peer review in all areas of intellectual pursuit. Based on his answer that may or may not be the case, he tends to be a bit weasely and snarky.

Your reading comprehension needs some serious work.

He gets away with that because he is a true believer, I recognize there are favored ones on this site.

I'm just the wrong type of true believer for you.

If you don't like the type of site this is, you should go find a nice atheist site where you can be a favored one.

 

[Stripe]

Peer review is held up as the be-all-and-end-all of scientific integrity, but it is nothing more than a glorified argument from popularity.

 

[Right Divider]

An interesting comment on Cosmology in this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology):

Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as astronomers and physicists, as well as philosophers, such as metaphysicians, philosophers of physics, and philosophers of space and time. Because of this shared scope with philosophy, theories in physical cosmology may include both scientific and non-scientific propositions, and may depend upon assumptions that cannot be tested.