RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (612) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2012,00:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 11 2012,00:11)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2012,11:39)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 10 2012,11:18)

Actually, quality hit-wise, the computer model and included theory is doing better by being published at Planet Source Code than it would in an average science journal.

In what way?
And PSC does not care about typos and a little bad grammar, or has a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.

What publications have that policy then?

List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even though I would (just to see what happens) not hesitate to submit something that I felt was ready to go, this really is a lot of theory that takes more than a quick paper to explain.  It also does not help to have half the scientific community spitting on the journal, then canceling their subscriptions in protest, for allowing ID to be taken seriously.  Especially after seeing it daring to suggest that their Evolutionary Algorithms could somehow be an imperfect model of reality.

What is already proudly published at Planet Source Code is for now, an excellent way to see what the theory looks like in science.  It's there a how-to for self-learners who only need that.  And top journals seriously do not want to get stuck in the middle of something that protesting scientists should have resolved somewhere else first, like here.  So here, I am...

What does a scientific paper need?

A testable hypothesis - you've already said yours can't be tested.

The test of the hypothesis - oops.

The data from the test - see where this is going?

The analysis of the data from the test - sigh.

A conclusion about the validity of the hypothesis based on the test - no hypothesis, no test, no conclusion.

And that is why no ID paper has ever been published in a peer-review journal.  Not a single ID proponent has ever presented a testable hypothesis for ID or the designer.

Do that FIRST, before you write a 50 page paper on ID.  Oh and it helps if, in your 'paper' you don't state things that are known to be wrong.

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

  18337 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (612) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]