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quickly outdated by new work (facts that Creationists seem to have a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