Saturday, March 02, 2013

Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy? The present system, if continued, may seriously impede, if not stop, the advance of science

This is about a paper by Frank J. Tipler Professor of Mathematical Physics Tulane University New Orleans. Link:

It was was published in 2003 and there have been a few green shoots of doubt about the academic publication process since then. There has been no systematic change however so the points made are still true to life.

My own experience reinforces everything he says. With just one highly technical exception NONE of my papers appeared in "mainstream" (APA) journals. And the reason is glaringly obvious. I have always been unwaveringly critical of Leftist ideas, which are the orthodoxy in academe. So nearly all of my 200+ published papers were published in just three journals with sympathetic editors. Amusingly, however two of those journals are very widely circulated and cited. So my papers still got good exposure and appeared in journals that were highly creditable. As soon as the editors changed, however, my papers ceased to be accepted!

So the bias in the academic journals towards global warming is actually only one subset of a larger and highly discreditable phenomenon. Tipler's reports do therefore reinforce the view that ANY overall bias in the academic journals is to be distrusted

There is however now no reason to rely on academic journals as a path to truth. The internet has made ALL ideas highly accessible and many "incorrect" ideas get good exposure. So one can readily find all sides to a question aired and make up one's mind based on the balance of the evidence rather than on just one side of it. Let the defenders of orthodoxy keep mumbling to one another in their journals while the rest of us get on with the real work of understanding the world

NOTE on Christianity:

Tipler is rather amusing in reporting the way Christianity is regarded with great horror among academics. I can however confirm the basic truth of what he says. I have been an unwavering atheist for the whole of my adult life so comments to me on the matter by colleagues have always been unguarded. And their contempt for Christianity has been almost universal.

I on the other hand have always defended Christian ideas as creditable. Although I have come to my own conclusions, I feel no need to be dogmatic about it. And, as I have said before, I think there is better evidence for the divinity of Christ than there is for dangerous global warming!

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). 

1 comment:

Doom said...

See, if atheists, as a group, were like you, dealing with them wouldn't be a problem. Most atheists, in my view, are fake. They have to run away, and use everything sin in their power to maintain the corruption of disbelief (it is a corruption if it is false, no matter how much it is avowed). Believe what you must, if it is natural, all good. If it is a lie... that is when the gloves come off and barriers are erected, to keep out the truth? temptation? Something they definitely fear. I realized, quickly, as a powerfully faithful Christian, I am more feared than hated, on campus, if it is close at times.

Do any of your peers realize what is about to happen with this government? Do they remember what happened to academia in past such 'administrations'? Or do they honestly deny, duck, dodge, and think they will not be included in the genocide. This president, the next, the next, it is coming, and at a horrible pace. The demographic bomb coupled with a corrupted republic aspect, and it is merely a matter of time. Do you think they know? Do you yourself understand, or at least suspect?

Don't answer, if it would impact things for you. Just consider the question. The answer is only for you, anyway. You can't help people who... believe... what they do.


eXTReMe Tracker