The one theology book all atheists really should read

Musika said:
What you talk about in terms of getting professional feedback is the task performed by an editor, not a writer,
Click to expand...
You are now confusing professional feedback with peer review.
Scientific papers often have editors - especially the published ones. That is not their peer review.
Musika said:
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.
Click to expand...
Peer review need unpack nothing. It would assess the attempt at communication, from a position of familiarity with success and failure in that endeavor.
 
iceaura said:
You are now confusing professional feedback with peer review.
Scientific papers often have editors - especially the published ones. That is not their peer review.
Click to expand...
Precisely my point.

Peer review need unpack nothing. It would assess the attempt at communication, from a position of familiarity with success and failure in that endeavor.
Click to expand...
Precisely my point.
 
sideshowbob said:
Only if your point is that black is white.
Click to expand...
If one can talk about not unpacking a claim by talking about unpacking it and not distinguishing between editorship and peer reviewing by distinguishing between editorship and peer reviewing, I would think one would not be a stranger to such feats of optical acrobatics.
 
Musika said:
Precisely my point.
Click to expand...
You were confusing editing with peer review. I helped you untangle yourself, and recognize that peer review of a cartoon and editing of a cartoon would be done by peer reviewers and editors, respectively.
Musika said:
"Peer review need unpack nothing. It would assess the attempt at communication, from a position of familiarity with success and failure in that endeavor."
Precisely my point.
Click to expand...
Precisely the opposite of your point.
This was your point:
Therein lies the absurdity: Bringing a team of professionals in to unpack something which by definition does not require unpacking.
Click to expand...
You were confused about what peer review is - for some reason you thought peer reviewers would be "unpacking" things and the like, and so peer review of a cartoonist's output would be absurd. That is a basic misunderstanding of peer review.
And so there is no absurdity such as you claimed to be "therein".
 
Musika said:
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
Click to expand...

Well it is true that peer review is a quality check that is carried out by peers where an editor cannot be expected to have the expertise to do it himself. In the case of a newspaper cartoon the editor will do it, indeed. But there is nothing silly in the idea of cartoonists reviewing cartoons, say for an annual prize for the best newspaper cartoon of the year, or something like that. Indeed peer review is exactly what is done by the panels that award book prizes.
 
exchemist said:
Well it is true that peer review is a quality check that is carried out by peers where an editor cannot be expected to have the expertise to do it himself. In the case of a newspaper cartoon the editor will do it, indeed. But there is nothing silly in the idea of cartoonists reviewing cartoons, say for an annual prize for the best newspaper cartoon of the year, or something like that. Indeed peer review is exactly what is done by the panels that award book prizes.
Click to expand...
The silliness lies in the notion of peer reviewing unlocking some integral aspect of comic strip artistry (like it does in science) ... which is an exact type of silliness that puts it on par with extracting authoratative commentaries for comic strips as some precursor to comprehension.

www.sciforums.com/threads/the-one-theology-book-all-atheists-really-should-read.161124/page-9#post-3538270
 
iceaura said:
You were confusing editing with peer review. I helped you untangle yourself, and recognize that peer review of a cartoon and editing of a cartoon would be done by peer reviewers and editors, respectively.
Precisely the opposite of your point.
This was your point:
You were confused about what peer review is - for some reason you thought peer reviewers would be "unpacking" things and the like, and so peer review of a cartoonist's output would be absurd. That is a basic misunderstanding of peer review.
And so there is no absurdity such as you claimed to be "therein".
Click to expand...
Musika said:
I would agree that there are certain persons plumbing the depths of semantics in their desperation to find something to disagree about.
Click to expand...
.... speaking of the plumber ...
 
Musika said:
The silliness lies in the notion of peer reviewing unlocking some integral aspect of comic strip artistry (like it does in science) ... which is an exact type of silliness that puts it on par with extracting authoratative commentaries for comic strips as some precursor to comprehension.

www.sciforums.com/threads/the-one-theology-book-all-atheists-really-should-read.161124/page-9#post-3538270
Click to expand...
Well yes but that is your notion, not anyone else's.

I reiterate, peer review is just a quality check, carried by fellow professionals.
 
exchemist said:
Well yes but that is your notion, not anyone else's.
Click to expand...
Unless you go running off to seek professional advice every time you encounter the Sunday funnies, it's your notion also.

I reiterate, peer review is just a quality check, carried by fellow professionals.
Click to expand...
Which, in turn, explains its necessity in scientific disciplines and its incidental nature in the comic strip industry.
 
Musika said:
Unless you go running off to seek professional advice every time you encounter the Sunday funnies, it's your notion also.
Click to expand...
No, you have misunderstood me.

The notion that I agree with you is silly is "the notion of peer reviewing unlocking some integral aspect of comic strip artistry"

But that notion is your own Aunt Sally, created for the purpose of ridicule. I have been trying to point out that peer review need not necessarily involve any "unlocking" or anything so grandiose. It can be applied to selection of works for a prize in cartoons, journalism or books, for instance.
 
Musika said:
The silliness lies in the notion of peer reviewing unlocking some integral aspect of comic strip artistry (like it does in science)
Click to expand...
No such "notion" as you describe is involved, in science or anywhere. Therefore, no such silliness.
Musika said:
.... speaking of the plumber ...
Click to expand...
Dealing with a clogged pipe.

This is actually relevant, but to another thread - the topic of what is wrong, mentally, with these Abrahamic theists who wander into science forums and spread this silly garbage is now better informed. Someone who has this muddled a notion of peer review clearly misunderstands science at a very basic level - when they talk about science, they're talking about something quite different from what the scientists are doing and talking about.
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
No, you have misunderstood me.

The notion that I agree with you is silly is "the notion of peer reviewing unlocking some integral aspect of comic strip artistry"

But that notion is your own Aunt Sally, created for the purpose of ridicule. I have been trying to point out that peer review need not necessarily involve any "unlocking" or anything so grandiose. It can be applied to selection of works for a prize in cartoons, journalism or books, for instance.
Click to expand...

Then you have the wrong words in mind. If one can drive a distinction between "peer reviewing" and "getting a review by one's peers", it's obvious you are choosing to ignore the very specific focus that peer reviewing brings to bear.
To say the least, if I tried to float some scientific claim as being "peer reviewed" on the strength of "some peers of the advocate reviewing the claim", I'm pretty sure you would be one of the first to kick up a stink.
 
Musika said:
Then you have the wrong words in mind. If one can drive a distinction between "peer reviewing" and "getting a review by one's peers", it's obvious you are choosing to ignore the very specific focus that peer reviewing brings to bear.
To say the least, if I tried to float some scientific claim as being "peer reviewed" on the strength of "some peers of the advocate reviewing the claim", I'm pretty sure you would be one of the first to kick up a stink.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons for trusting established scientific journals is the quality of the reviewers they use, certainly.
 
Jeeves said:
So, tht's a resounding No then. Just checking.
Click to expand...
If you expect to locate the winners of the national society of cartoonists awards on a peer review data base, then sure, it must strike you as a resounding "no".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top