No kidding!
I once met somebody who told me they know a guy whose cousin said she read it.
And all you have to go by is the original!
The one theology book all atheists really should read
- Thread starter Musika
- Start date
And all you have to go by is the original!
The perennial mission of the christian atheist
There is already a methodology for peer review. If you're going to pontificate about peer review, you ought to know what it is.
Lol
Sure.
Just not for Dilbert.
What will you be looking for?
Dilbertness?
Should we merge your attempts with your foray into 2500 Buddhist humor in the other thread?
Do they look for "scienciness" in scientific peer review? Don't flaunt your ignorance. Find out what words mean before you use them.
As I recall, in every other thread that you and I have crossed swords, you've run away with your tail between your legs.
Probably because science is all about making specific claims and Dilbert is about ... well ... Dilbert.
Your optimism is praiseworthy
Peer review is about testing. Were there errors made in the methodology of the experiment or in the interpretation of the results? The goal is to improve the next experiment and hopefully get closer to "the truth".
It's the same in journalism. A cartoonist might be told by his peers, "That's over the heads of our dim-witted readers," or, "You're getting pretty repetitious," or, "Make Trump's head bigger." It's about making communication better. A wise man seeks constructive criticism.
\chortle
So you have nothing intelligent to say?
It seems that's not your forte, either. You haven't read any Dilbert books, but you've seen a stack of of prescriptive things one could unpack as instructive to the task of understanding Dilbert.
In case it matters: The series is a critical commentary on American mores, culture and popular attitudes, economics and power relations, depicted through the prism of office politics. It was original, amusing and insightful at the outset, but has been overwhelmed by commercial success and jaded by time.
That's not a peer review, btw; that's a nutshell summary of a consumer reaction.
You've twigged him!
I could try to say something funny about how fanaticsl atheists will demean themselves to "scientifically peer review" Dilbert in order to justify their beliefs ... but you are both doing such a fine job at it without my input.
It's that same problem of words again.
1. belief or unbelief in the supernatural, of whatever degree, is not relevant to the evaluation of secular literature.
(Dilbert, FYI, is secular.)
2. writing a short comment on a book is not a demeaning activity in any realm of which I am cognizant.
3. "scientifically" did not appear in my comments, and would have been inappropriate. Book reviewing is not a scientific endeavour.
4. "peer review" did appear - in the form of disclaimer: that's the clause with the word "not" in it.
I'm neither a cartoonist nor involved in the American business world, so I am in no wise a peer of Scott Adams. I am, however, a frequent user of books; well qualified to provide consumer opinion. In this case, it was a mere courtesy toward a non-user of books.
5. Justification of one's own anything is never the purpose of a book review. In case you're still unclear on the concept, a book review is
"a form of literary criticism in which a book is analyzed based on content, style, and merit . It may be a primary source, opinion piece, summary or scholarly review."
Its purpose is inform other potential readers or users of the book.
6. Beliefs, my own or anyone else's were neither mentioned nor pertinent to the matter at hand.
I concur. We are both much funnier without trying than Musika can ever hope to be, however hard he tries. Talent.
Last edited:
"Peer reviewing ..." (wiggle hands) ".... book reviewing."
Item #287 - does not know difference between 'book' and 'peer'.
So your deity is whatever you need it to be at the moment, to deal with some pesky objection to what you said five minutes ago.
Phrased as questions, to prevent accountability.
And that is a general feature of overt Abrahamic theistic posting. Any requirement that theists make sense is a limit on God, and since mere human beings cannot put limits or boundaries on God - - - - .
Just as any curtailment of their political power is a limit imposed on their religious freedom.
It has the same internal logic as the canon itself.
"The danger lies in thinking that such knowledge is part and parcel of what he must believe to save his soul and in presuming to make obstinate declarations about such things of which he knows nothing."
-- St. Augustine
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
That is misrepresenting what was said and in consequence missing the point of it.
What was suggested is that a cartoon could quite sensibly be critically reviewed by the cartoonist's peers, in their capacity as professional cartoonists. Not scientifically reviewed, obviously. That would indeed be silly.
Peer review simply involves a practitioner of an art or science submitting his work to other professionals for comment, as a check on its quality.
Last edited:
But that is not the goal of peer reviewing. The very merit of peer reviewing is that it is a task performed by professional people, whose nature as professionals, empower them to analyze specific claims in a systematic manner. The very nature of comic strip artistry is to communicate to the common denominator (or the common denominator within a targeted group). Therein lies the absurdity: Bringing a team of professionals in to unpack something which by definition does not require unpacking. What you talk about in terms of getting professional feedback is the task performed by an editor, not a writer, which, as anyone who has experience in the field of publishing would understand, is a completely different job description (hence the notion of wiggling one's hands in order to connect peer reviewing with book reviewing).
Geez, you can even find cartoons that explore this theme as laf material