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".
And that blogger didn't post anything that wasn't in the transcripts. As someone familiar with the case, I understood all along that the first quotes were referring to Buckingham, et. al., and that Behe was only loosely linked with them.
I don't dispute your claims of the author's intent, but I persist in my claim that your post was similarly generalizing. You can't avoid it when you use a single example to discredit an entire group.
Even only counting the three, it would indicate more rigorous review than the comparative 2 that Behe mentioned as customary.
No. Just asking someone to read a book isn't rigorous. The number of reviews is meaningless if nothing follows. That's not what peer-reviewed articles go through. The reveiw comes back, then the authors clarify, edit, delete, etc. Then it's reviewed again. The issues raised are hashed out and resolved.
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...
So, by your definition and preconcieved judgements of the DBB reviews you haven't even read, the book was NOT peer-reviewed properly by the reviewers. I guess we've found some common ground on the fallacy of Behe's claim.
I can't help but notice there's still no action beyond the initial review in your definition. Again I ask, what's the point?
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?
I did read the review, which was a response to his short, 3-page letter. Without seeing Behe's letter, I think we can infer from the details of the review that it deals strongly with philosophy and metaphysics rather than science, much like his books. The review addressed those areas, but I didn't see any personal attacks. How can you accuse the reviewer of not "touching the science" when you haven't even seen the "science" presented in the submission?
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".
What definition of mine are you referring to? Darwin's work was exstensively peer-reviewed both before and after publication. It wasn't the same process we have today, but it's why the work was subsequently revised many times as criticism was produced. The content was compelling enough to convince almost all of the staunchest critics.
Behe's book could theoretically have the same effect, if his revisions were worthwhile enough to win over more proponents. As it is, he seems to only be able to enlist the religiously inclined to his cause. If there were real science in there, scientists would flock to it. Darwin proved that, as did Einstein.
To be clear here, the issue at hand is not that DBB got bad reviews. The problem is that it has been claimed to be "peer-reviewed", possibly moreso than regular scientific journal articles, which implies that it has passed a certain level of scrutiny. Well, it has been scrutinized, but to claim it has passed is dishonest.
Don't you ever sleep?
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".
And that blogger didn't post anything that wasn't in the transcripts. As someone familiar with the case, I understood all along that the first quotes were referring to Buckingham, et. al., and that Behe was only loosely linked with them.
I don't dispute your claims of the author's intent, but I persist in my claim that your post was similarly generalizing. You can't avoid it when you use a single example to discredit an entire group.
Even only counting the three, it would indicate more rigorous review than the comparative 2 that Behe mentioned as customary.
No. Just asking someone to read a book isn't rigorous. The number of reviews is meaningless if nothing follows. That's not what peer-reviewed articles go through. The reveiw comes back, then the authors clarify, edit, delete, etc. Then it's reviewed again. The issues raised are hashed out and resolved.
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...
So, by your definition and preconcieved judgements of the DBB reviews you haven't even read, the book was NOT peer-reviewed properly by the reviewers. I guess we've found some common ground on the fallacy of Behe's claim.
I can't help but notice there's still no action beyond the initial review in your definition. Again I ask, what's the point?
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?
I did read the review, which was a response to his short, 3-page letter. Without seeing Behe's letter, I think we can infer from the details of the review that it deals strongly with philosophy and metaphysics rather than science, much like his books. The review addressed those areas, but I didn't see any personal attacks. How can you accuse the reviewer of not "touching the science" when you haven't even seen the "science" presented in the submission?
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".
What definition of mine are you referring to? Darwin's work was exstensively peer-reviewed both before and after publication. It wasn't the same process we have today, but it's why the work was subsequently revised many times as criticism was produced. The content was compelling enough to convince almost all of the staunchest critics.
Behe's book could theoretically have the same effect, if his revisions were worthwhile enough to win over more proponents. As it is, he seems to only be able to enlist the religiously inclined to his cause. If there were real science in there, scientists would flock to it. Darwin proved that, as did Einstein.
To be clear here, the issue at hand is not that DBB got bad reviews. The problem is that it has been claimed to be "peer-reviewed", possibly moreso than regular scientific journal articles, which implies that it has passed a certain level of scrutiny. Well, it has been scrutinized, but to claim it has passed is dishonest.