Originally posted by element771

This is citing your opinion because you pick and choose which articles you find to be persuasive. Just because something is published, it does not mean it is 100% correct. This is where knowledge and opinion come into play. You can't just read articles and swallow their message without the ability to discern what is true, maybe true, crap, etc.

True being published in peer reviewed journals nor magazines like SA and Discover are not 100% (the sky is blue to on a clear 4th of July), but I am not selective and I am willing too consider any opposing opinions from well recognized physicists, cosmologists, and mathematicians have to offer. The problem still stands you have citing zip, nada, nothing to support your notion that the universe is all there is as an alternative.

Good for you. I was using your own words to describe the articles cited by SM.

First SM did not cite any articles, he just hand waved and cited a website. My description still stands. The technical articles referenced in this site are indeed highly cumbersome, specialized and difficult for the average Twebers. I understand the math and the basics of cosmology, but some are indeed beyond my ability to understand well. If there is something I want understand better, I will check out the authors, references and related articles.

Will you stop saying this. I am not saying that the issue is settled because of SM. You are misrepresenting what I have repeated over and over again.

NO!!!!! Go back and read your own posts promoting SM as an authority. I will not stop saying that, because repeatedly you are supporting an anonymous poster on Tweb as a greater authority since the beginning of the thread, and this is not good science.

THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO PEER REVIEW.

Can you not read?

Yes I can read. These articles are peer reviewed by the editorial staff of the journals, and some of the articles in SA are from peer reviewed journals. The rediculous nature of your spurious attacks grow with each post.

Yes, they are based on the article. But that is it. In these magazines, they are free to take the results to the next level or the implications without anymore research. You cannot do this in peer reviewed articles. All speculation is subjected to criticism by other experts in the field. This is not the case in these magazines.

You will have to document and cite this 'illusion' to another level, because the articles in general do not do that. I have gone back and gotten the articles these are based on particularly in my field, and found that your charges do not hold water. The conclusions cited in the articles generally match thos in the research articles written and cited by the same authors that wrote the articles in SA and Discover. These articles are not usually based on one article, but on a bibliography including articles written by the authors.

I actually use SA and Discover in this way. I read the article and then use the Bibliography and citations of the authors to go back and read more of the technical background the articles are based on.

There are science rags out there like Popular Mechanics and Popular Science, but SA and Discover are not in that group.

Review your rather negative spurious post that started this exchange and note that you stated that the articles are not written by scientists. This is biggest falsehood of your statements so far and criples any credibility you have attacking these magazines.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

NO!!!!! I will not stop saying that. You are supporting an anonymous poster on Tweb as a greater authority since the beginning of the thread, and this is not good science.

Fact: SM is a greater authority than you are.

Not a Fact: SM's opinion does not outweigh other scientists. You are not a scientist.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Yes I can read. These articles are peer reviewed by the editorial staff of the journals\\

THIS IS NOT PEER REVIEW.

Do you know what peer review is? Please explain it if you do.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

There are scinece rags out there like Popular Mechanics and Popular Science, by SA and Discover are not in that group.

Yes they are.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Review your rather negative spurious post that started this exchange and note that you stated that the articles are not written by scientists. This is biggest falsehood of your statements so far and criples any credibility you have attacking these magazines.

Fine, there are some articles written by scientists in Discover and SA. This is a side issue. Again, the articles are not peer reviewed. You have not said anything that rebuts this point. You have actually said things to discredit your opinions on science because you don't even know what peer review is.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I actually use SA and Discover in this way. I read the article and then use the Bibliography and citations of the authors to go back and read more of the technical background the articles are based on.

I find this hard to believe. When SM gave you citations, you complained that they were " cumbersome and references large amounts (in fact huge amounts) of mostly highly technical articles."

This is science.

Originally posted by HELLBOY

You know......?

Seems like that happened, before....

How can you tell?

and.... is anybody safe????

you stared at his ring again didn't you?

ps. the truth is, Hellboy, that in 30 years, after you graduate High School, you will go on to go to college and become a great physicist who works on Quantum Entanglement and Teleportation. One day after church (yes you become a Christian), you will be working on your quantum teleportation device, and will accidentally activate it, creating a vortex that sucks you in. As you pass through the portal, you reach out to stop your fall and your hands get cut off. You travel back in time to the year 2009, where you find yourself on theology web again, and take the pseudonym "Shadowmaster" and have to use typists to write your posts, and so you speak in the third person. Meanwhile you wait around to watch your younger self, Hellboy make a fool of himself.

Originally posted by element771

Fact: SM is a greater authority than you are.

Not a Fact: SM's opinion does not outweigh other scientists. You are not a scientist.

Still 'unsubstantiated Air Balls'. You have no credible knowledge as to the education and credentials od SM nor I. Yet you still claim to have such information.

THIS IS NOT PEER REVIEW.

Do you know what peer review is? Please explain it if you do.

Simple, the articles are reviewed for their content by scientists before publication. The editorial staff of these magazines represent peers in the fields of those that publish in them.

Fine, there are some articles written by scientists in Discover and SA. This is a side issue. Again, the articles are not peer reviewed. You have not said anything that rebuts this point. You have actually said things to discredit your opinions on science because you don't even know what peer review is.

Not some, virtually all are written by the scientist themselves that published related articles in specialized journals. Your spurious ignoramous statement still stands where you said, 'they are not written by scientists.'

I find this hard to believe. When SM gave you citations, you complained that they were " cumbersome and references large amounts (in fact huge amounts) of mostly highly technical articles."

Find it hard to believe? Odd statement. The reference library of the site is rather huge, comprehensive, and primarily referencing highly technical journals. Your not making xense at all.

This is science.

Yes, and so is SA and Discover magazines. You have not cited anything to support your spurious accusations. Please cite articles that fit the claims you make and document where they make claims and conclusions not in the articles and publications they are based on.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

The problem still stands you have citing zip, nada, nothing to support your notion that the universe is all there is as an alternative.

Can you cite a paper that says the Earth is round?

Or that the Earth revolves around the sun?

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Still 'unsubstantiated Air Balls'. You have no credible knowledge as to the education and credentials od SM nor I. Yet you still claim to have such information.

What is your education?

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Simple, the articles are reviewed for their content by scientists before publication. The editorial staff of these magazines represent peers in the fields of those that publish in them.

This is not peer review.

Again, this is not peer review.

One more time, this is not peer review.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Not some, virtually all are written by the scientist themselves that published related articles in specialized journals. Your spurious ignoramous statement still stands where you said, 'they are not written by scientists.'

Can you please cite where I said this?

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Yes, and so is SA and Discover magazines. You have not cited anything to support your spurious accusations.

THEY ARE NOT PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!

That is my accusation and I am 100% correct.

Originally posted by shadowmaster

Good. Then try being more balanced in your presentations. So only posts with cited sources are to be considered in your estimation. The shadowmaster will remember that for your future posts.

I have considered this in all past posts, and will consider this in all future posts.

In "all your posts"? Guess what meter just pegged.

Please cite a post where I claim myself as an authority, and claim one view is absolutely correct over another.

We seem to have a bit of contention. Shadowmaster isn't the one whose propagating himself to be an authority. Loosely quoted "take my words at the level you will, as supported by what I post/linkto"

Element has stated that shadowmaster (and some others) are of greater authority in this subject (physics or some subsection) than other posters on here.

Bickering between various people non withstanding, before we can assign someone a position of authority, we'd need some actually reason to. SM is content with not having his credentials or whatever be slammed into peoples heads, E771 seems to want people to recognize people as published authors or scientists or something without any of the published parts being up for us to see.

Originally posted by Jaecp

Element has stated that shadowmaster (and some others) are of greater authority in this subject (physics or some subsection) than other posters on here.

Bickering between various people non withstanding, before we can assign someone a position of authority, we'd need some actually reason to. SM is content with not having his credentials or whatever be slammed into peoples heads, E771 seems to want people to recognize people as published authors or scientists or something without any of the published parts being up for us to see.

I am simply going by what people say. Notice that I throw in SoR in one of the people of more authority so my bias is not with theists.

Also, my main problem is more with Discover and SA being portrayed as scientific journals. Shuny doesn't even know what peer review is yet he claims to have an understanding of science and scientific inquiry.

Not saying your biased, just that to throw people out as authorities and then those people can't actually say why they are authorities is a bit off.

Originally posted by Jaecp

Not saying your biased, just that to throw people out as authorities and then those people can't actually say why they are authorities is a bit off.

But I have spoken to both SM and SoR privately and have discussed their areas of their expertise.....therefore I am not just throwing people out there.

funny that Hellboy is whining about someone else not wanting to produce their credentials when he won't either.

wuz up with that HB?

Originally posted by element771

I am simply going by what people say. Notice that I throw in SoR in one of the people of more authority so my bias is not with theists.

Going simply by what people say, is lousy science to say the least. 'Throwing in SoR' does not help your case. The problem is you put SM up as an authority without proper support.

Also, my main problem is more with Discover and SA being portrayed as scientific journals. Shuny doesn't even know what peer review is yet he claims to have an understanding of science and scientific inquiry.[/quote]

I would not hide behind this problem if I were you. I did not portray SA and Discover as scientific journals, I portrayed them as reasonable accurate scientific magazines, written by scientists who back up these articles with peer review journal articles in their field. We have difference as to how peer review applies here. In scientific journals, grants and publication process peer review varies. You are defining peer review narrowly. I am saying that the articles in these magazines are peer reviewed by the editorial staff of the magazines. This is a broader use of the terms, but not a real problem.

Your demeaning description of the conclusions in these articles as different from the original technical publications of the articles is a problem.

I have a problem with two missing posts prior to your post #35, one mine you referred to in post #35 and one of yours I referred to previously I am trying to resolve.

Originally posted by element771

But I have spoken to both SM and SoR privately and have discussed their areas of their expertise.....therefore I am not just throwing people out there.

All the more reason to not put another persons expertise from hidden examples. The rest of us have no idea what went on there, so can we really be expected to act on it?

Shadowmasters own take on it, is what you should be going off of.

Element777 and I have indeed spoken privately. My area is astronomy(aka astrophysics), . Element works in biochemistry and biology. Lots of people claim to be working scientists but are in fact fakes.

Element is 100% legit Jaecp.

As for shawdow master. No idea. I've never spoken to him.

I know of two other physicists online that I talk regularly with.