Peer Review

[Jack_]

A thought experiment is only of use to convey the logical implications and structure of a model. A thought experiment tells you what the model says should happen, it does not tell you what the universe says happens. If a model is inconsistent then a thought experiment might be used to demonstrate as much. If you can't find a logical inconsistency then its not right as the thing which matters is whether the model and universe agree.

If a model is mathematically/logically consistent then a thought experiment alone won't be able to falsify it. As such you must include a comparison to experiments if you're going down the route of thought experiments, demonstrating the universe is not as the model's prediction in the thought experiment. You haven't done this. Further more SR and GR are mathematically sound. This is easily seen in SR as its the application of a well known and understood mathematical structure to space-time. In GR even black hole singularities are mathematically sound, though the specifics are much much more advanced than most other things in GR. Thus we need to include an experimental comparison somehow, but all possible ways of testing GR within the capability of an individual have been done, GR passed. Thus a paper written by someone outside a research group will not include new experimental data.

So we're left with new models. A new model would have to be demonstrated to work for all known experiments, at the very least. No crank I've ever come across has demonstrated they are aware of the majority of phenomena their 'model' must work for, never mind all of them better than GR. You included.

As Guest says, your paraphrasing is insufficient. You've previously paraphrased me incorrect to my face so lord knows what you're like when paraphrasing people not in the discussion.

Typical, models are not logically consistent, theories are.

In logic, a consistent theory is one that does not contain a contradiction[1]. The lack of contradiction can be defined in either semantic or syntactic terms. The semantic definition states that a theory is consistent if it has a model; this is the sense used in traditional Aristotelian logic, although in contemporary mathematical logic the term satisfiable is used instead. The syntactic definition states that a theory is consistent if there is no formula P such that both P and its negation are provable from the axioms of the theory under its associated deductive system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory

 

[BertBonsai]

And, unlike cranks around here, I would not tell you you are wrong unless I could prove it with math or an experiment for all to see.


Otherwise, I would say I cannot find a problem or it is beyond me.

Which shows that you are a true scientist.

 

[funkstar]

I would like to see your proof of the logical consistency of SR.

You keep saying it, so I assume you can prove it and know what that means in model theory.

Jack_, stop pretending you know something, when you don't. Even technical terms are context dependent, and AN's meaning is clear.

Also, stay out of this thread unless you have something to say about peer review.

 

[funkstar]

I'm a scientist, and I long for papers that surprise me. As do all my colleagues. Surprisingly enough, the majority of papers I've rejected as a reviewer are for reasons such as "no novel content", or "no significantly new result". This idea that scientists are only interested in the well-established theories is completely foreign to me. In fact, I don't of a scientist who holds such a position. All the ones I know are extremely interested in new physics/mathematics/ideas - as long as they are good ideas.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Jack_]

Jack_, stop pretending you know something, when you don't. Even technical terms are context dependent, and AN's meaning is clear. Don't muddy the waters.

Also, stay out of this thread unless you have something to say about peer review.

Up to this point of our meetings, you have not refuted anthing I have posted mathematically.

In any model of science, that would make your comments useless.

Now, it is my view if peer review is dominated by the likes of folks like you, that would make it flat earth since again you have not refuted anthing I have posted mathematically.

 

[funkstar]

You uselessly posted about the meaning of the word "model" in logic, (where it has a very specific meaning), in order to try and score some cheap points off AlphaNumeric. You got called out on it. Accept it and move on (preferably to somewhere not here).

 

[Jack_]

You uselessly posted about the meaning of the word "model" in logic, (where it has a very specific meaning), in order to try and score some cheap points off AlphaNumeric. You got called out on it. Accept it and move on (preferably to somewhere not here).

I am sorry, did you have a mathematical proof against my assertions?

You said you do peer review correct?

How flat earth.

If you attempt to refute my logic, I will embarrass you in front of everyone which is why noone here will attempt to do it to me here.

Let's play chess.

Why not beat the crap out of me so everyone can laugh.
I would think one of your heavy hitters would just come to me and refute me with proof.
That is science and everyone would conclude Jack_ is an ass,

I'll wait.

 

[BertBonsai]

I'm a scientist, and I long for papers that surprise me. As do all my colleagues. Surprisingly enough, the majority of papers I've rejected as a reviewer are for reasons such as "no novel content", or "no significantly new result". This idea that scientists are only interested in the well-established theories is completely foreign to me. In fact, I don't of a scientist who holds such a position. All the ones I know are extremely interested in new physics/mathematics/ideas - as long as they are good ideas.

Quoted for truth.

The key there would be good ideas. Perhaps in the minds of many scientists it is okay to judge an idea by its cover, if only based on the perceived unlikelihood of validity. I'd probably do the same thing for SR if I was a journal editor, except I'd have a posted policy against papers challenging SR and admit that it's unscientific.

 

[Jack_]

You uselessly posted about the meaning of the word "model" in logic, (where it has a very specific meaning), in order to try and score some cheap points off AlphaNumeric. You got called out on it. Accept it and move on (preferably to somewhere not here).

Let's go to another thread, I have one.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Typical, models are not logically consistent, theories are.

In logic, a consistent theory is one that does not contain a contradiction[1]. The lack of contradiction can be defined in either semantic or syntactic terms. The semantic definition states that a theory is consistent if it has a model; this is the sense used in traditional Aristotelian logic, although in contemporary mathematical logic the term satisfiable is used instead. The syntactic definition states that a theory is consistent if there is no formula P such that both P and its negation are provable from the axioms of the theory under its associated deductive system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory

Well done on demonstrating you can't understand context and simply Google for your 'knowledge'. Clearly I was talking about models and theories in physics. A model is the formal quantitative framework and it is upgraded to theory once its been tested for physical applicability and passed. If a model predicts inconsistent results then its automatically failed since any theory, a viable description of the universe, is going to be consistent (we hope).

I know you struggle to understand this stuff because you've never learnt it but my advice would be that its better to just not say anything. The old adage "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" applies to you. If someone hasn't followed your posts too much you might just seem a little naive or ill informed, that is until you do something like make it clear you just slapped in the words you didn't understand into Wikipedia and picked the wrong meaning.

You can ask them yourself and get similar responses. It should be a repeatable test. I would ask a slightly different question though, which is "Does your journal accept refutations of GR that consist of only a thought experiment." If no, that journal is not open-minded, not fully scientific. You wouldn't need a copy of my emails.

I've already explained that to you. A thought experiment alone can only examine the mathematical consistency of a theory or its applicability to phenomena we already know. The mathematical consistency of GR is based on Riemannian geometry whose range of validity extends far beyond 'simple' GR. And all experiments thus far done match GR. If a thought experiment claims to kill GR but not the entirity of geometry then its reached a false conclusion.

You seem to be missing this subtle point. Yes, anything can be killed by a thought experiment but its already established that the area of mathematics which GR exists within is sound, the frontier of geometry research is far far beyond the edges of GR. Hence its not that journals don't accept thought experiments, they just know that a number of additional criteria are needed as well and you (and all your cranky friends) fail to meet such criteria. You once again fail to understand the point being made and you blame everyone else for your naivety and misunderstandings.

Up to this point of our meetings, you have not refuted anthing I have posted mathematically.

I have. Rpenner has. Pete has. And given only one refutation is needed (which is the point Bert is trying to make about GR) your claims are negated. Why do you persist in pretending otherwise? Do you think no one can remember last week?

Why not beat the crap out of me so everyone can laugh.
I would think one of your heavy hitters would just come to me and refute me with proof.
That is science and everyone would conclude Jack_ is an ass,

I have. Rpenner has. Pete has. And given only one refutation is needed (which is the point Bert is trying to make about GR) your claims are negated. Your repeated "Oh why won't someone retort me" threads are started each time someone retorts you in the previous one and you can't ignore it any longer. Thus demonstrating you're an ass.

Let's go to another thread, I have one.

You have many. All of them demonstrating your dishonesty and ignorance. You must make your parents so proud.

 

[Pete]

If you attempt to refute my logic, I will embarrass you in front of everyone which is why noone here will attempt to do it to me here.

Willful dishonesty will get you banned. Again.

That is science and everyone would conclude Jack_ is an ass

Jack, out of all the forums you've spammed, out of all the people you've engaged in discussion, who has not concluded you are a dishonest and deluded ass? :bugeye:
Are you still relying on your imaginary friends?

 

[LostArt]

By my count the last 23 posts on this thread called "Peer Review" was not about Peer Review (though it's possible I missed some passing reference to it). That would make them all off topic. That's nearly half the thread. One of these posts IS appropriate; the one that said 'let's move to this to another thread.'

This post is about Peer Review.

I have no firsthand knowledge of the peer review. Never even been close to it. However, I can confidently make some valid characterizations about peer review. How can I? Simple. Because scientific institutions are human institutions. All human institutions, no mattered how varied their purpose, share a surprising similar pattern in how they operate, because, well they are all groups of humans, and humans are consistently fallible.

Scientists no doubt prefer to think their institutions operate at higher proficiency level, with a reduced level of the common human weaknesses. But alias, there is no real basis to support this. I can elaborated on this much more at some other time, but this is not the point of this post.

Here are some things I can say about peer reviews:

-Peer reviews are done by and large by appropriately knowledgeable reviewers who take the time to discover flaws in papers, which improves the quality of papers that get published and weed out papers that are weak or fundamentally flawed.

-Peer reviews are dominated by politics. At best reviewers are often incompetent and don't understand the paper, which results in good papers being substantially weakened or even rejected, while letting papers with glaring mistakes get published, at worst, the reviewers (or those assigning reviewers) exercise a personal agenda, favoritism, personal biases, sabotage ,etc.

-Peer reviewers are basically professional and competent, but often mistake as flaws things in a paper that contradicts what they and their colleagues generally believe, so require that they be "corrected," or the paper rejected for publication. This results in a homogeneity in the papers that do get published, which merely reinforces what the scientists in the field regard as scientific consensus (really scientific dogma). Truly new ideas rarely see the light of day, and the field stagnates.

I could add a few more of these, but I think you get the picture. All these statements are demonstrably true. They are all at the same time demonstrably false. (No, I not about to create some cute Complementarity Principal concerning peer review.) It's just that peer reviews are all over the map. You can't make generalizations. To be more concise; any generalizations about peer review aren't really useful or accurate. The best you could do, really, is generalize about a specific publication for a specific time period.

This includes the statement: 'Peer reviews may be flawed and imperfect, but they are better than having nothing.' This statement is true, at least I think most would agree with it, but it's not useful, or meaningful. Consider an imaginary law that requires everyone who goes outside must wear a bright orange vest. Defenders of this law argue that there is solid scientific evidence that wearing the vests saves lives (mostly from studies involving road construction crews and cyclists). In this case, the statement, 'it's better than nothing' is demonstrably true, but not necessarily a good argument for that particular law.

Jim

 

[Jack_]

By my count the last 23 posts on this thread called "Peer Review" was not about Peer Review (though it's possible I missed some passing reference to it). That would make them all off topic. That's nearly half the thread. One of these posts IS appropriate; the one that said 'let's move to this to another thread.'

This post is about Peer Review.

I have no firsthand knowledge of the peer review. Never even been close to it. However, I can confidently make some valid characterizations about peer review. How can I? Simple. Because scientific institutions are human institutions. All human institutions, no mattered how varied their purpose, share a surprising similar pattern in how they operate, because, well they are all groups of humans, and humans are consistently fallible.

Scientists no doubt prefer to think their institutions operate at higher proficiency level, with a reduced level of the common human weaknesses. But alias, there is no real basis to support this. I can elaborated on this much more at some other time, but this is not the point of this post.

Here are some things I can say about peer reviews:

-Peer reviews are done by and large by appropriately knowledgeable reviewers who take the time to discover flaws in papers, which improves the quality of papers that get published and weed out papers that are weak or fundamentally flawed.

-Peer reviews are dominated by politics. At best reviewers are often incompetent and don't understand the paper, which results in good papers being substantially weakened or even rejected, while letting papers with glaring mistakes get published, at worst, the reviewers (or those assigning reviewers) exercise a personal agenda, favoritism, personal biases, sabotage ,etc.

-Peer reviewers are basically professional and competent, but often mistake as flaws things in a paper that contradicts what they and their colleagues generally believe, so require that they be "corrected," or the paper rejected for publication. This results in a homogeneity in the papers that do get published, which merely reinforces what the scientists in the field regard as scientific consensus (really scientific dogma). Truly new ideas rarely see the light of day, and the field stagnates.

I could add a few more of these, but I think you get the picture. All these statements are demonstrably true. They are all at the same time demonstrably false. (No, I not about to create some cute Complementarity Principal concerning peer review.) It's just that peer reviews are all over the map. You can't make generalizations. To be more concise; any generalizations about peer review aren't really useful or accurate. The best you could do, really, is generalize about a specific publication for a specific time period.

This includes the statement: 'Peer reviews may be flawed and imperfect, but they are better than having nothing.' This statement is true, at least I think most would agree with it, but it's not useful, or meaningful. Consider an imaginary law that requires everyone who goes outside must wear a bright orange vest. Defenders of this law argue that there is solid scientific evidence that wearing the vests saves lives (mostly from studies involving road construction crews and cyclists). In this case, the statement, 'it's better than nothing' is demonstrably true, but not necessarily a good argument for that particular law.

Jim

Good points.

It would seem peer review would have to reply with disproofs, if they are indeed scientific.

 

[GeoffP]

Jack, please don't argue anywhere near to the same side as me. Thanks.

 

[Jack_]

Jack, please don't argue anywhere near to the same side as me. Thanks.

I would not, I only argue my position.

I suppose you do the same.

What would make you possibly think I would follow you?

 

[BertBonsai]

If a thought experiment claims to kill GR but not the entirity of geometry then its reached a false conclusion.

Not necessarily. GR is more than just geometry. It also has postulates with which it must be consistent. No proof exists that it's consistent with those postulates. Do you ever think anything through before you post?

Hence its not that journals don't accept thought experiments, they just know that a number of additional criteria are needed as well and you (and all your cranky friends) fail to meet such criteria.

The additional criteria they need is superfluous, logic shows.

 

[BertBonsai]

Here are some things I can say about peer reviews:

Good post LostArt. I'm curious, what is the source of your info?

 

[Guest254]

-Peer reviews are done by and large by appropriately knowledgeable reviewers who take the time to discover flaws in papers, which improves the quality of papers that get published and weed out papers that are weak or fundamentally flawed.

Agreed - this is the idea of peer review. To weed out bad papers and publish good papers.

-Peer reviews are dominated by politics. At best reviewers are often incompetent and don't understand the paper, which results in good papers being substantially weakened or even rejected, while letting papers with glaring mistakes get published, at worst, the reviewers (or those assigning reviewers) exercise a personal agenda, favoritism, personal biases, sabotage ,etc.

Peer review dominated by politics? Utter garbage. Whilst I'm sure there are a few occasions where mediocre papers get put through because of politics, good papers get through regardless. It helps no one to reject good, interesting papers - let alone the journal in question. If a paper is genuinely good and well presented, then it will get published. When you review a paper and think you've found something wrong, you have to outline in detail why you think it is wrong. You then cite supporting evidence as to why it is wrong. You then hope that the other (anonymous) reviewers spot the same mistake and give the same reasoning. And at this point the author disagrees with the critique, he has the opportunity to outline, in detail, why the reviewers are incorrect and why the results within the paper still hold. While all this happens, the corresponding editor sits back and watches the exchanges. He will then make a decision based on the information at hand. If, after all the information has been presented and arguments submitted, the editor agrees with one side or the other, then his final say is given. The editor wants what is best for the prestigue of the journal: he want great papers published, and incorrect papers rejected. So you can be sure that in the case of a contested submission, he will take great care in making the final decision.

This is based on my knowledge of "human institutions", academic institutions and both sides of the peer review process.

-Peer reviewers are basically professional and competent, but often mistake as flaws things in a paper that contradicts what they and their colleagues generally believe, so require that they be "corrected," or the paper rejected for publication. This results in a homogeneity in the papers that do get published, which merely reinforces what the scientists in the field regard as scientific consensus (really scientific dogma). Truly new ideas rarely see the light of day, and the field stagnates.

This is massively naive. Most ideas are rubbish - the reason we don't see lots of alternate theories of gravity (for instance), is because the vast majority of attempts are rubbish. It is incredibly hard to have a truly original idea that gives headway into a new area of physics. So the fact that you don't see lots of papers along the lines of "a new theory of light.." is because it is so difficult to produce one. There is no conspiracy.

 

[Jack_]

Not necessarily. GR is more than just geometry. It also has postulates with which it must be consistent. No proof exists that it's consistent with those postulates. Do you ever think anything through before you post?


The additional criteria they need is superfluous, logic shows.

Wow, someone else knows this.

 

[Pete]

Wow, someone else knows this.

You're in great company, Jack. You should get your imaginary friends together with Bert's imaginary friends, and have yourself a party.
:m: