argystokes
Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:07) | | Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2008,17:00) | | Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:29) | | I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory many times. They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be. In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with. Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own. But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement. |
According to your link, Brown's interactions with Dietz were regarding the terms and conditions of a possible debate. Dietz was not part of a peer-review process, even an informal one. It's pretty clear, even from the creationist source you provided, that Dietz would have not been kind to Brown's work* if he had reviewed it.
*My contribution to International Understatement Week. |
Hello? I already stated that Dietz did not provide a formal review. Are you not reading what I wrote? I wrote exactly what I meant. Don't put words in my mouth. |
Why did you say 'peer reviewed' rather than reviewed by peers? Since peer review has a well-understood definition, ie formally refereed after submission to a journal, it strongly appears that you were intentionally conflating your colloquial definition with the normal one. Why do you insist on expressing your thoughts with as little clarity as possible (eg, refusing to use a synonym for condone)?
--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin
|
