Re: Some questions for Christainsen

"David" <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1188783526.071805.282890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 2, 8:44 pm, "Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"David" <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1188758724.546562.50610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Sep 2, 1:51 pm, Ian <ian.gro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2 Sep, 18:05, David <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 2, 8:33 am, Ian <ian.gro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The scholarly world has no obligation to read and review every
crackpot theory which comes along. If we had, we'd never get any
serious work done.

You have no knowledge of the rules of the scholarly world in Dr.
Thiering's field. So, contrary to your opinion, there was every
obligation.

I'm sorry, David, but I don't agree with you. Academics have no
obligation to respond to every crackpot idea lobbed our way. To get
academic attention, you have (one has) to play by academic rules. You
submit work for peer-reviewed publication. That means you need good
evidence, not just sensational conclusions, and you need to justify
every step of logic and deduction you use.

What makes you think she did not already get thru your hurdles when
she already got published enough in certain peer-reviewed
publications?

Thats not how peer reviewed articles work. They don't look at the author
and
think "well, that author has submitted good papers in the past, we'll let
this new one through based solely on past reputation". Each and every
paper
a person submits to a peer reviewed journal is judged on its own merits,
*not* on who the author happens to be. An academic is really only as good
as
the last paper they got published.

I believe you misunderstood what I wrote.

Dr. Thiering long ago was published in peer-reviewed journals and has
a
respectable list of such articles, which I have already passed on.
Are you
unaware of the list? You can get one of the lists from the Wikipedia
article
on Dr. Thiering but then again, she once provided her own list of her
publications on my former yahoo forum.

I am aware of her publications. They were published in peer reviewed
journals, and I have a good deal of respect for her work in the areas that
have been published in peer reviewed journals

read this following paragraph again, please:

Which is why Thiering has published some papers - the papers that have
been
published have been reviewed by her peers (ie, people with qualifications
and knowledge similar to her own) and have met the usual requirements for
publication in a peer reviewed journal. In *those* papers her methods
have
been repeatable, and her conclusions sound given the evidence presented
*in
the paper* (although possibly wrong - thats what the 'repeatably' means
and
how Fleischmann and Pons were proved wrong in the end. But thats science
for
you).

Thiering's papers that *haven't* been published are the crackpot ones,
where
she *doesn't* establish a method that is repeatable by an independant
body,
and her conclusions are conjecture and assertions rather than based on
the
evidence presented in the paper.

I mean you no disrespect but you don't know what you are talking
about when you fling around the word "crackpot". You must withdraw
the term or face the consequences of loss of face. I don't understand
why you run her down.

I don't run Thiering down as a person (you'll not that I never called *her*
a crackpot). I don't even run down her published papers. I am simply running
down her crackpot theory simply because it has no academic or scientific
viability.

I'd run down a theory from Einstein himself if it couldn't be scientifically
tested and no-one else int he world could even comprehend it much less
reproduce it independantly.

heck, Isaac newton had crackpot theories about God too. That doesn't in any
way invalidate his work on gravity. Teh point is that just because an
academic has managed to get some articles published in peer reviewed
journals DOES NOT MEAN that everythign said academic thinks and writes is
right, or to the standard of a peer reviewed article.

The are scientists who bellieve in the literal 6 day creation story that get
some of their work published in peer review journals too - but only when
their work is worthy of being published. You'll note that no credible
scientific journal agrees with Creation Science, though.

I understand her pesher method.

And yet you cannot explain it yourself, you just point to web pages that
don't have the information available for *anyone* else to udnerstand and
reproduce.

and repeatedly have provided the
gateway to Thiering pesher for laypeople in terms of Thiering time
indications
in specific NT text as referring to Essene solar calendar. Nobody has
got
it yet. Engineer bailed out part way thru. I never said it was easy.

Heck, whilst I don't publish in peer reviewed *journals*, every single
one
of my papers is reviewed *by my peers, in my scientific community* where
I
work (and hte patent I co-hold took *forever* to get the words right).
Sometimes they refuse to publish it *as is*, not because I've got things
'wrong' but merely because they can't follow my logic, or that my
conclusions don't match the evidence *as presented* (even if everyone
knows
that the conclusions are correct - they must match the evidence *as
presented in the paper* or they are worthless). Thats the whole *point*
of
peer review, to make sure that the *science* is sound.

You don't get it; FLAT STATEMENT - the entire system of peer review
broke down badly in the case of Dr. Thiering and I say it is grossly
unfair.

If some of her papers are still being published, as you have mentioned
above, then there can be no demosntrated bias against *her* herself in the
peer review process. The only objection people have -here and in academic
circles - is to her wild pesher theory.

What part of that don't *you* understand?

Actually, come to think of it, what papers of yours have gone throught he
peer review process? Have you had any? Do you understand how it works?

Each paper is published *on its merits*. If it is not up to standard, it
doesn't get published. If it is up to scientific standard, it does. That
Thiering has been and continues to be published suggests that the peer
review system is working perfectly.

Surely even you'd prefer to have submitted papers judged on their merit
rather than on the author's previous credentials, otherwise anyone with a
previous track record coud publish *anything*.

Dr. Thiering is right and that's the point. You are cordially invited
to read
even one of her peer-reviewed articles to judge for yourself.

I am *not* disputing her peer reviewed articles, I am disputing her pesher
theory, you know, the one that *hasn't* got peer review.

IMHO her best article to reach you is -

"The Three and a Half Years of Elijah", Novum Testamentum 23,1, 1981,
pp.41-55
(available to you on JSTOR if your local library or university library
subscribes to it on the internet)

because it shows in a crystal-clear way Essene solar calendar in
certain Daniel
and NT verses.

I don't care about the way the Essene solar Calendar related to Daniel
verses. I'm sure its an intersting and possibly quite viable theory, and
could well be proved wrong with the uncovering of further archeological or
DSS scroll evidence.

But we aren't talking about her peer reviewed work (which is of enough
quality to get into peer reviewed journals).

The thing under discussion here is her pesher theory as applied to the New
Testament. She has not published the 'rules of pesher' in a peer reviewed
article. No one has managed to reproduce her work. Her theory is not
scientifically testable. Therefore it is not science and has no place in a
peer reviewed Journal.

That a whole bunch of academics in her own field of expertise have openly
disputed her claims using well established evidence to prove her wrong
suggests that her pesher theory is a crackpot theory, much like the various
conspiracy theories, Creation Science theory and alien theories. they can't
be tested, they cant be disproven, they have no scientifically validity,
they are articles of *faith*.

Yowie


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dear John
    ... your "theories" to a peer-review publication with your associated ... INADEQUACIES OF PEER REVIEW ... most scientists published their views ... recommendations advanced in papers were correct or unchallengeable. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Dear John
    ... your "theories" to a peer-review publication with your associated ... INADEQUACIES OF PEER REVIEW ... most scientists published their views ... recommendations advanced in papers were correct or unchallengeable. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Some questions for Christainsen
    ... obligation to respond to every crackpot idea lobbed our way. ... Thats not how peer reviewed articles work. ... Dr. Thiering long ago was published in peer-reviewed journals and has ... FLAT STATEMENT - the entire system of peer review ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death
    ... not given due process in peer review, ... would shine through by experimentation in a scientific community that ... makes them somewhat sad, a wasted effort perhaps, a lost intellect. ... Overall i think a bit of crackpot theory is good, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death
    ... not given due process in peer review, ... would shine through by experimentation in a scientific community that ... makes them somewhat sad, a wasted effort perhaps, a lost intellect. ... Overall i think a bit of crackpot theory is good, ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading