the existence of god is a scientific fact

[joe1776]

If psi journals are under intense scrutiny, then please tell me what credentialed scientists are responsible for reviewing them and what processes are used to test their claims.

The people who conduct the experiments are scientists, the statisticians are qualified, they go through the very same review process.

I hope they do a better job than the mainstream journals since a long-term meta-analysis of 100 studies found that 64% of Psychology studies failed to replicate.
Scientists Tried to Replicate 100 Psychology Experiments And 64% Failed

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The people who conduct the experiments are scientists, the statisticians are qualified, they go through the very same review process.

Again, WHAT credentialed scientists, and WHAT is their process. Be specific.

I hope they do a better job than the mainstream journals since a long-term meta-analysis of 100 studies found that more than 64% failed to replicate.
Scientists Tried to Replicate 100 Psychology Experiments And 64% Failed

Pointing to existing flaws in the peer review of other journals doesn't make psi journals more credible. The challenge is on your to demonstrate the reliability of psi journals.

 

[joe1776]

Again, WHAT credentialed scientists, and WHAT is their process. Be specific.

If you had a worthwhile argument to make, you wouldn't need to stoop to making absurd demands

Pointing to existing flaws in the peer review of other journals doesn't make psi journals more credible. The challenge is on your to demonstrate the reliability of psi journals.

But it does show that that the psi journals don't have a high bar to reach to be just as good as mainstream journals, doesn't it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you had a worthwhile argument to make, you wouldn't need to stoop to making absurd demands

Why is it absurd to request evidence of peer review for the peer reviewed journal?

But it does show that that the psi journals don't have a high bar to reach to be just as good as mainstream journals, doesn't it?

Sure. Now all you have to do is actually demonstrate that they DO reach that bar. So where are the results of their replication studies?

 

[joe1776]

Why is it absurd to request evidence of peer review for the peer reviewed journal?

I've told you that they use the same process as mainstream journals. I'm fairly familiar with that process but it would take considerable time to explain it.

If you aren't familiar with the mainstream process, you can do your own search.

Sure. Now all you have to do is actually demonstrate that they DO reach that bar. So where are the results of their replication studies?

It took many, many years for mainstream science to decide to examine the quality of their journals. The psi people haven't done theirs yet..

Where are the results of the replication studies? Which experiments are you asking about?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, that's a valid argument. However, mainstream science also publishes journals.

They do. And they have certain criteria in place, certain standards that the papers must live upto in order to get published.

Creationist papers don't meet that standard. And apparantly neither do the ones you're linking to.

So, how does the fact that paranormal researchers publish journals make their endeavor analogous to creationists and not mainstream science?

Because they created their own journals for the exact same reason as creationists did: out of spite because their stuff doesn't meet the required standards for publication in proper journals.

So to get "published" anyway, they created their own journals where no such criteria and standards are in place.

There's value in scientific journals, precisely because of those standards and criteria. In fact, it's those standards and criteria that make a journal a "scientific" journal. These are the standards and criteria of the scientific method. It's what puts the science in "scientific journal".

And it is exactly that what these creationist and paranormal journals did: they stripped the science out of it.

I think it's perfectly fine for people to explore such subjects. At least, if they have an honest approach and actually do their best to do valid research. I encourage them. But until their work meets the required quality to be able to pass as proper science, I'm really not interested.

Life is too short to engulf myself in every wacky idea. I'll let professionals first filter out the BS and only focus on what has been validated properly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not familiar with the creationist journals. I've never seen one. However, the psi journals follow the same process as the mainstream journals. In fact, they have to be more careful because of the intense scrutiny their work is subjected to.

So the scrutiny in those journals is harsher then the one in the mainstream?

yet, they manage to get published in the harsher journals, but not in the mainstream?

Something, does not add up here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've told you that they use the same process as mainstream journals.

That can't be correct.
Because they manage to get published in these journals, while they don't manage to get published in mainstream journals.

So CLEARLY there MUST be a difference in the process of review.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've told you that they use the same process as mainstream journals. I'm fairly familiar with that process but it would take considerable time to explain it.

I'm not asking you to necessarily explain the process, I'm asking for evidence OF the process.

It took many, many years for mainstream science to decide to examine the quality of their journals. The psi people haven't done theirs yet..

You seriously believe that no examinations of journals have been conducted before the one you linked to?

Where are the results of the replication studies? Which experiments are you asking about?

Any.

 

[joe1776]

Creationist papers don't meet that standard. And apparantly neither do the ones you're linking to.

Sorry, your expertise is not recognized.

Because they created their own journals for the exact same reason as creationists did: out of spite because their stuff doesn't meet the required standards for publication in proper journals.

Out of spite?

So to get "published" anyway, they created their own journals where no such criteria and standards are in place.

The psi journals were created because the mainstream journals are biased.

There's value in scientific journals, precisely because of those standards and criteria. In fact, it's those standards and criteria that make a journal a "scientific" journal. These are the standards and criteria of the scientific method. It's what puts the science in "scientific journal".

64% of 100 psychology studies published failed to replicate. See the link in my previous post.

 

[joe1776]

That can't be correct.
Because they manage to get published in these journals, while they don't manage to get published in mainstream journals.

So CLEARLY there MUST be a difference in the process of review.

Of course there is. Mainstream science is biased against psi research.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The psi journals were created because the mainstream journals are biased.

Of course there is. Mainstream science is biased against psi research.

That sure sounds familiar...

Do Creation Scientists Publish in Mainstream Journals?

 

[joe1776]

That sure sounds familiar...

Do Creation Scientists Publish in Mainstream Journals?

So, what's your point? Creationists claim bias, psi researchers claim bias, so they must both be wrong?

 

[joe1776]

So the scrutiny in those journals is harsher then the one in the mainstream?

yet, they manage to get published in the harsher journals, but not in the mainstream?

Something, does not add up here.

It adds up for me: The psi journals aren't biased against publishing psi research. The mainstream journals are.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, what's your point? Creationists claim bias, psi researchers claim bias, so they must both be wrong?

You're using the same arguments that creationists use to support their flawed reasoning - alleging bias without actually demonstrating it. Anybody can assert whatever they want and claim the reason they aren't generally accepted is because of "bias". The question is whether not you can demonstrate bias.

From where I'm sitting, there is absolutely and demonstrably no bias against psi research, either from me, James Randi or the scientific community at large. The bias is in reality. Fact is, no credible study has ever been conducted that demonstrates to a panel of qualified, scientific peers that psi is actually real - because it isn't. It's imagination, deception or delusion.

I would love for you to prove me wrong, but I doubt you will.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It adds up for me: The psi journals aren't biased against publishing psi research. The mainstream journals are.

Please present evidence of this bias and explain why it exists.

 

[joe1776]

You're using the same arguments that creationists use to support their flawed reasoning - alleging bias without actually demonstrating it. Anybody can assert whatever they want and claim the reason they aren't generally accepted is because of "bias". The question is whether not you can demonstrate bias.

Just how in the hell would you do that?

I would love for you to prove me wrong, but I doubt you will.

I can't possibly prove you wrong without a doubt. What I've done in this debate is make an argument that I think will persuade unbiased minds that they should ignore self-proclaimed skeptics and their ridicule of the subject of the paranormal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, your expertise is not recognized.

What expertise?

Out of spite?

Yes. I'm currently in a countdown till the accusations of conspiracy at the address of scientists.

The psi journals were created because the mainstream journals are biased.

That's what the creationists say as well.

So, biased for or against what, exactly?

64% of 100 psychology studies published failed to replicate. See the link in my previous post.

So?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course there is. Mainstream science is biased against psi research.

In what way and how have you concluded this?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, what's your point? Creationists claim bias, psi researchers claim bias, so they must both be wrong?

The parallels are very uncanny...

1. fail to get your stuff published (because it doesn't meet the standards of those journals)

2. accuse them of conspiracy / being biased (or "anti god" or "anti psi")

3. create your own journals and indiscriminatly publish all the stuff in there that you can't get published in the mainstream

4. pretend as if that means something

5. when questioned, accuse the scientific community again


Yeah.... I've seen that movie before.