Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Ahh yes, but peer - reviewed by whom? Other scientists generally, who work in the same area or an approximate field, and who are thoroughly indoctrinated in the principles of science and the scientific method. The peer review I get back from my research articles generally say things like "the simulation study in section 5 needs to include reference to blah-blah's 1971 work". Generally, I don't get reviewers saying "The whole premise of science is flawed. Science does not exist. Therefore your article is a waste of time. Rejected!"

On a like-to-like scale, I would say the ancient texts are as valid in a peer review sense as any scientific article.

James.

My brother from another mother!!!

Say hello to your nephew Lee when you get a chance!

Jimbo, I've got to disagree with you - they published both the Bible and the Quran despite my request to be properly credited. Make no mistake, these books need to be REJECTED for plagiarism and misrepresenting my previous works.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Ahh yes, but peer - reviewed by whom? Other scientists generally, who work in the same area or an approximate field, and who are thoroughly indoctrinated in the principles of science and the scientific method. The peer review I get back from my research articles generally say things like "the simulation study in section 5 needs to include reference to blah-blah's 1971 work". Generally, I don't get reviewers saying "The whole premise of science is flawed. Science does not exist. Therefore your article is a waste of time. Rejected!"

On a like-to-like scale, I would say the ancient texts are as valid in a peer review sense as any scientific article.

James.

Ouch! Eat that peers!

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

Ouch! Eat that peers!

Apologies, I did not mean to impugn the peer review process. I just wanted to point out that peer review is simply internal validation, whether it be related to scientific discourse or any other discourse.

I am sure the ancient texts of all religions have been poured over throughout the ages by countless men and women learned in their respective theologies. I do not believe peer review is unique to science.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Apologies, I did not mean to impugn the peer review process. I just wanted to point out that peer review is simply internal validation, whether it be related to scientific discourse or any other discourse.

I just wanted to agree

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

I just wanted to agree

Oh sorry quick

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Oh sorry quick

James.

I'm sure it's ok Slow

Originally Posted by gugi

Jimbo, I've got to disagree with you - they published both the Bible and the Quran despite my request to be properly credited. Make no mistake, these books need to be REJECTED for plagiarism and misrepresenting my previous works.

Well, that's what I told them too Gugi. But the original publishers thought the names sounded better: The Holy Gugle; The Gug'an, The Gugakh - unfortunately none of them polled very well with the focus groups...

James.

Yeah, I'm just waiting for their sins to pile a bit more and then 'I shall strike them with furious anger'...
The time is coming close though, you noticed the signs - focus groups show a complete contempt for the truth and call the black white and vice versa. I'm just waiting for their wicked ways to reach their full measure (and the LHC to be repaired)....

You know what they say: Smite makes right