Detractors (plural)? That right there is lumping his detractors in with this single atheist blogger who lumped Behe in with the other Creationists. Your generalization isn't as blatant, but it's still there.
Um... No. It's lumping his plural detractors in with the plural detractors I mentioned are getting a lot of mileage, per:
"I became curious enough to Google "Michael Behe Lied Under Oath", and boy, did I get an eyeful of responses."
Now, I did segue with "apparently 'they' still are" and I linked to this post. But I made it plain and evident that I was dealing with THIS blog only. I made it very clear with comments such as "Siamang (the author of the blog I'm quoting", "Now, I'm not sure if the author intentionally misled his readers", "but it's as if (s)he seeks".
Maybe my generalization isn't so blatant because I tried to make a point of not doing so.
No one ever disputed it was reviewed. The question is: was this review more rigorous or even as rigorous as an article in a refereed journal?
Um... No, you said:
The term "peer-reviewed" is understood to describe the academic process associated with journal articles. Attaching that term to Behe's book suggests one of two things: ignorance or dishonesty."
Behe claimed it was sent to 5 instead of the normal 2 or so, and "they" probably read it more diligently than usual because it goes against the present paradigm. One apparently didn't read it until later. Three vehemently opposed it, which indicates that they apparently indeed read it diligently. The fourth is unknown to both of us. Even only counting the three, it would indicate more rigorous review than the comparative 2 that Behe mentioned as customary.
As for Behe's posted correspondence with journal editors, note that he only picked a few short letters in the conversation, none of which were intended to be rigorous review of the submissions. It's apparent that the review documents do exist, but for some reason he chose not to post them.
My take is that the review from the "senior adviser" is meant as a detailed review as to why it's being rejected. Did you follow the link, or are you waiting for my next post, where I will paste the "senior advisor's" review? Or am I missing your point?
My question still stands: what does "peer-review" mean to you? What purpose should it serve?
To me, it means a review by ones peers grading the quality of a theory, model, etc, based on and speaking to the science involved. It does not involve a priori rejection, circular reasoning refutation, etc, nor does it require acceptance of the theories involved... As analogy I'll put it this way... The last paradigm shift occurred when a scientifically untrained theologian published a theory that was flatly rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community of the time. So, apparently by your definition, we should trash "Origin of Species".
Detractors (plural)? That
Detractors (plural)? That right there is lumping his detractors in with this single atheist blogger who lumped Behe in with the other Creationists. Your generalization isn't as blatant, but it's still there.
Um... No. It's lumping his plural detractors in with the plural detractors I mentioned are getting a lot of mileage, per:
"I became curious enough to Google "Michael Behe Lied Under Oath", and boy, did I get an eyeful of responses."
Now, I did segue with "apparently 'they' still are" and I linked to this post. But I made it plain and evident that I was dealing with THIS blog only. I made it very clear with comments such as "Siamang (the author of the blog I'm quoting", "Now, I'm not sure if the author intentionally misled his readers", "but it's as if (s)he seeks".
Maybe my generalization isn't so blatant because I tried to make a point of not doing so.
No one ever disputed it was reviewed. The question is: was this review more rigorous or even as rigorous as an article in a refereed journal?
Um... No, you said:
The term "peer-reviewed" is understood to describe the academic process associated with journal articles. Attaching that term to Behe's book suggests one of two things: ignorance or dishonesty."
Behe claimed it was sent to 5 instead of the normal 2 or so, and "they" probably read it more diligently than usual because it goes against the present paradigm. One apparently didn't read it until later. Three vehemently opposed it, which indicates that they apparently indeed read it diligently. The fourth is unknown to both of us. Even only counting the three, it would indicate more rigorous review than the comparative 2 that Behe mentioned as customary.
As for Behe's posted correspondence with journal editors, note that he only picked a few short letters in the conversation, none of which were intended to be rigorous review of the submissions. It's apparent that the review documents do exist, but for some reason he chose not to post them.
My take is that the review from the "senior adviser" is meant as a detailed review as to why it's being rejected. Did you follow the link, or are you waiting for my next post, where I will paste the "senior advisor's" review? Or am I missing your point?
My question still stands: what does "peer-review" mean to you? What purpose should it serve?
To me, it means a review by ones peers grading the quality of a theory, model, etc, based on and speaking to the science involved. It does not involve a priori rejection, circular reasoning refutation, etc, nor does it require acceptance of the theories involved... As analogy I'll put it this way... The last paradigm shift occurred when a scientifically untrained theologian published a theory that was flatly rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community of the time. So, apparently by your definition, we should trash "Origin of Species".