Joined: July 2007
|Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,12:39)|
Tell me, TP, what is the factual basis for your confident assertion that this paper was peer-reviewed?
I may be wrong about this. But this was included in the acknowledgement...
|Citations to "This Volume"refer to Toward a Science of Consciousness, (1996) S Hameroff, A Kaszniak, A Scott (eds), MIT Press, Cambridge. |
Also published in Mathematics and Computer Simulation 40:453-480, 1996
So what? Neither of those suggest that the paper was peer-reviewed.
|And the paper has been very much reviewed, and criticized, by the likes of Tegmark, Grush and Churchland.|
Oh, come on! That's not what "peer-reviewed" means, and you know it. "Peer-reviewed" means that it is reviewed by peers BEFORE publication, not after.
|But like I said, I may be wrong.|
You probably are. My question is, why would you make such a claim without evidence?
|Maybe MIT Press and Mathematics and Computer Simulation are less particular than I gave them credit for.|
That's just pathetic, TP. The point is that contributions to the secondary literature are rarely peer-reviewed, while those to the primary literature almost always are. I know that none of the reviews I have published were peer-reviewed.