Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <628@psivax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 12:36:23 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.628 Posted: Wed Aug 7 12:36:23 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 22:19:09 EDT References: <389@iham1.UUCP> <14600031@hpfcrs.UUCP> <488@utastro.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 48 In article <488@utastro.UUCP> bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) writes: > Experience has shown that >the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff, scientifically speaking, >is to subject it to rigorous scrutiny by independent, anonymous referees >prior to publication. I know from personal experience how greatly my >own publications have been improved by this process. Therefore, scientific >research gains its legitimacy by being published in a refereed journal. Quite true, as I also know from painful experience. And, despite thinking my own ideas are excellent, my rejection by refereed journals has only *increased* my respect for them. >This >does not mean that the research or its conclusions are correct - lots of >stuff slips by that should not have been published, and lots of research is >quickly outdated by new work (facts that Creationists seem to have a >hard time learning!) Nor is it true that rejection of a work means that >it is wrong. > A *very* important point. This is why I make it a point to use Science Citation Index to generate *forward* references from any articlle older than about 5 years! This way I can get more recent thinking on the subject and see how well it has stood up to th test of time. I also evaluate the evidence in each article on its own merits, and often decide that the conclusions stated are over-extended on the basis of presented evidence! Remember "Science Citation Index", a very necessary tool for good science. >On the other hand, if one fails to submit ones research to such >scrutiny, one as much as admits that it is not worthy of >serious consideration. Creationists sometimes complain that their >work would be automatically rejected, but the fact of the matter is that >they have barely put that hypothesis to the test. A recent study >showed that Creationists have submitted *hardly anything* >for publication in refereed journals (except for submissions, not related >to Creationism, in their own fields of expertise). > And in fact some Creationists *do* get published in refereed journals, look at all the references to Dr. Gentry in the 116 Reasons pamphlet. These come the *closest* of anything in it to being real evidence. At least I feel I must treat them seriously. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen