When there are differing views in science... Can both sides actually be equally intelligent and aware of the issues?
It seems that philosophy and different world views play a huge role in determining some scientific opinions.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341034/title/Climate_skepticism_not_rooted_in_science_illiteracy

You know that thread on the General section we have about "Tell me something uninteresting."


Well....from the article.

"High science literacy actually boosts the likelihood that certain people will challenge what constitutes credible climate science."

That's a great candidate. It's so boring, but virtue of being obvious, it could put the Rhino tranquilizer industry out of business.
So what, it's still just good science doing what it does. Self policing itself.

EDIT. I will grant you that it is important to always attempt to read folks in the context of the person, their motivations, desires and so forth. Plato is a prime example of the need to do that. However, peer review is arguably one of the defining points of good science. The rise of modern science (renaissance onwards I mean) is in part due to the rise in global communication, naturally.

How do we peer review the Bible though, or read elements of it in terms of attempting to read that in context of its author?

Longloadr wrote:

When there are differing views in science... Can both sides actually be equally intelligent and aware of the issues? It seems that philosophy and different world views play a huge role in determining some scientific opinions. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341034/title/Climate_skepticism_not_rooted_in_science_illiteracy

Yes but peer review implies that the people on the other side are scientific peers, and are themselves willing to concede defeat. Most ID advocates, for instance, only write books and "articles" for the non-science world (it's easier to fool people who don't understand the other side), as they are not, typically, active participants in the science research community.

pat771s wrote:

Longloadr wrote: When there are differing views in science... Can both sides actually be equally intelligent and aware of the issues? It seems that philosophy and different world views play a huge role in determining some scientific opinions. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341034/title/Climate_skepticism_not_rooted_in_science_illiteracy Yes but peer review implies that the people on the other side are scientific peers, and are themselves willing to concede defeat. Most ID advocates, for instance, only write books and "articles" for the non-science world (it's easier to fool people who don't understand the other side), as they are not, typically, active participants in the science research community.

Peer review and ID is somewhat different from climate change. (with some similarities also) Peer review does not apply to ID, because the journals are catering to certain audiences, they don't allow the controversy. For example there are Creationist journals who don't publish articles from evolutionists... And journals such as Nature, do not allow articles from creationists.

The Big Oil lobby can afford to spread misinformation and make people doubt the problems they have caused. In reality 97% of the climate scientists are convinced that anthropogenic global warming do exist and the few skeptical scientists mostly belong to Big Oil-sponsored organizations.

Longloadr wrote:

Peer review and ID is somewhat different from climate change. (with some similarities also) Peer review does not apply to ID, because the journals are catering to certain audiences, they don't allow the controversy. For example there are Creationist journals who don't publish articles from evolutionists... And journals such as Nature, do not allow articles from creationists.

As for climate science, I think my point still stands. Lysholm is correct that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW occurs.

As for ID- really? Are you sure that's why? How do you know that it's not simply that nobody has raised a decent study pertaining to ID? I've read the "creationist journals," and most of the arguments amount to arguments from ignorance- "I don't see how it could happen, so, it didn't." This just isn't science. Nature doesn't reject it because "oh no3z teh christians!!11!" but rather because the "studies" are not scientific and add nothing to the discussion other than "hey, guys, um, I think it's not what you say, because, like, well, you don't know everything!!!"

pat771s wrote:

Longloadr wrote: Peer review and ID is somewhat different from climate change. (with some similarities also) Peer review does not apply to ID, because the journals are catering to certain audiences, they don't allow the controversy. For example there are Creationist journals who don't publish articles from evolutionists... And journals such as Nature, do not allow articles from creationists. As for climate science, I think my point still stands. Lysholm is correct that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW occurs. As for ID- really? Are you sure that's why? How do you know that it's not simply that nobody has raised a decent study pertaining to ID? I've read the "creationist journals," and most of the arguments amount to arguments from ignorance- "I don't see how it could happen, so, it didn't." This just isn't science. Nature doesn't reject it because "oh no3z teh christians!!11!" but rather because the "studies" are not scientific and add nothing to the discussion other than "hey, guys, um, I think it's not what you say, because, like, well, you don't know everything!!!"

Pat, no you are incorrect. Nature and other journals have a policy to reject / not accept articles from creationists. So yes they do say ""oh no3z teh christians!!11!" .
But it is the same with the creationist journals... they do not accept articles from evolutionists.

Longloadr wrote:

pat771s wrote: Longloadr wrote: Peer review and ID is somewhat different from climate change. (with some similarities also) Peer review does not apply to ID, because the journals are catering to certain audiences, they don't allow the controversy. For example there are Creationist journals who don't publish articles from evolutionists... And journals such as Nature, do not allow articles from creationists. As for climate science, I think my point still stands. Lysholm is correct that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW occurs. As for ID- really? Are you sure that's why? How do you know that it's not simply that nobody has raised a decent study pertaining to ID? I've read the "creationist journals," and most of the arguments amount to arguments from ignorance- "I don't see how it could happen, so, it didn't." This just isn't science. Nature doesn't reject it because "oh no3z teh christians!!11!" but rather because the "studies" are not scientific and add nothing to the discussion other than "hey, guys, um, I think it's not what you say, because, like, well, you don't know everything!!!" Pat, no you are incorrect. Nature and other journals have a policy to reject / not accept articles from creationists. So yes they do say ""oh no3z teh christians!!11!" . But it is the same with the creationist journals... they do not accept articles from evolutionists.

Do you have a link to evidence of that? I mean, not that every creationist article ever has been rejected, but that they actually reject articles from creationISTS. Additionally, do these rejected articles exist online somewhere? It would be informative to read, I think.

pat771s wrote:

Longloadr wrote: Pat, no you are incorrect. Nature and other journals have a policy to reject / not accept articles from creationists. So yes they do say ""oh no3z teh christians!!11!" . But it is the same with the creationist journals... they do not accept articles from evolutionists. Do you have a link to evidence of that? I mean, not that every creationist article ever has been rejected, but that they actually reject articles from creationISTS. Additionally, do these rejected articles exist online somewhere? It would be informative to read, I think.

Pat... I'm so tired Must I??
You are correct that occasionally an ID scientist, or creationist gets articles published in secular journals. However some journals have policies to out right reject calling it psuedo science... end of story. Others who submit articles showing evidence that the earth is not experiencing man made global warming have also been rejected outright with people never getting a chance to see their work. Names such as 'heretic' have been applied to some who submitted articles claiming there was no evidence that global warming / climate change was due to man made causes. You can google (I have done this previous) and find guidelines for articles and the peer review process for different journals. As example of how some scientists get dismissed......

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT wrote:

(scientists) who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis

'Climate of Fear' OpinionJournal April 2006

Submitted articles to journals are routinely rejected for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the quality or validity of the article. That is why there are now at least 4 (that I know of) peer reviewed creationist journals.