"The other day, discussing the subject of modern day scientific research which is most often controlled by politics, I wrote: “The peer-review system has serious flaws." (Arkadiusz Jadczyk)

http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2007/11/keith-seffens-wtc-collapse-folly-not.html

For a deliciously funny insight into the world of scientific mumbo-jumbo and , read Arkadiusz Jadczyk's review of the paper written by Dr Keith Seffen's on the progressive Collapse of the WTC.

About Arjadiuysz Jadczk
http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/jadczyk_cv.html

The only real flaw with peer review is that human beings are doing the reviewing.

I would love to hear a solution to that problem, lol.

Aliens?

Computers can't do it because they don't know how to think and reason. Yet. God help us if they ever do.

Without emotion, compassion and love, a thinking conscious computer is just a psychopathic machine.

I am not saying it is a problem with a single solution. It seems to me the corrections are often slow to come, but the peer review system is the best we have available.

The best mechanism for correcting bad publication is either that the publication is ignored and goes into the waste bin of scientific apathy, or it is challenged, and I believe this happens more than not.

One of the best ways to make a name for yourself in science is to challenge publications and publish research which destroys other papers conclusions.

i figured you would like what she has to say, laura-knight-jadczyk on her website is always talking bad about the jews and a known bush, blair and Sarkozy hater... but she loves her conspiracy theories... but i still like her website, there is some good on it too...

http://www.sott.net/

did a Double Double-Take when I saw that name,laura-knight-jadczyk!
But,Birds of a Feather flock together!

lol, i know you don't like her to much...she is a loon, but i still like the science side of her site...

She's so far out,it's a small wonder the Truthers have found her,or she has them!

You guys always attack the messenger. I know NOTHING AT ALL about laura-knight-jadczyk! I never even heard of her until I found her husbands peer review.

And I see nothing at all "wrong" with her or her husband.

What is wrong with "hating" Bush anyway? Lots of smart people do, since he and his whole family has screwed the country a million times over.

If she is talking about "jews" I know nothing about that but I would probably be interested in what she has to say. Jews do pretty much own the media.

nobody said anything about you... are you paranoid? check out her webite i posted, there is some good articles on there...

She is WAAAYYYY out there!! A sample.



Throughout her exposé, Laura Knight-Jadczyk refers to two powerful works of the scientist-alchemist Fulcanelli: The Mystery of the Cathedrals and Dwellings of the Philosophers. She applies her vast knowledge to the continuation of his work.
...
According to Laura Knight-Jadczyk, the mysteries of the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Temple refer to a particular, very advanced “technology” – with the aim, for example, of teleportation and changing between space-time dimensions – a secret and sacred science of which only a few great “Initiates” have remained custodians.

Christ Jesus was the surest guarantor of this precious legacy, and, although it might displease Dan Brown (author of The DaVinci Code), the genealogical lineage of the “Sangréal” (the “Sang Royal” or “Holy Blood”), is not at all as he believes it to be! The reader of this important work by Laura Knight-Jadczyk will realize that there are completely different conclusions to that mystery.

Her erudition cannot but impress the reader during the course of an assiduous reading of this quite astonishing book. As to her inspiration, what can we say, and, from whence could it come, if not the Light of the stars?

I read her husbands paper on "peer review" of a 9/11 paper. Ironically, he did not know enough about the physics to understand the math. Which goes to show that the real problem with scientific peer review, when there is one, is having an actual "peer" do the review.

When Einstein blossomed, some "peers" thought his ideas were worthless.

I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about laura-knight-jadczyk!
Just because she is associated with Arkadiusz Jadczyk you are attacking the credibility of this thread and its topic.

She has nothing to do with the fact that the scientific peer review system is flawed.

i question the credibility of anyone i think is a jew hater... i have yet to see a positive post about jews on her website..

THIS thread is not about her. It is about the peer review and blog that belongs to Arkadiusz Jadczyk.

I don't know why you even brought anything up about her. I had never even heard about her before you brought it up. And why are you so sensitive about people who don't say nice things about Jews anyway? I think you are obsessed with Jews.

Please stick to the topic.

you brought it up, by posting her blog post... do you not even know what your topics are anymore?

Well I guess you didn't even read the blog post. It was her blog, but she turned the post over to her husband and the post was written by him.

I know what my topics are about so stop making it personal. I don't think I am even going to respond to you anymore, you just exude some sort of bias attitude and sarcasm that I don't want to hear. Blah.

haha, you say something stupid and i'm making it personal? your the queen of sarcasm, then you want to blame someone else? your right tho, we really don't need to respond to each other anymore, your just not smart enough for me to deal with anymore...

Exactly. Peer review is slow because often cutting edge science is done in small groups where no unbiased peers are completely ready for the new science, but when something exciting comes out plenty of people pick up the torch and carry on. Sometimes it takes a few years to sink in, but the power of peer review is clear to see in the advancement of science and tech.

Criticisms are easy, solutions few.

That is B.S. He is very math literate. He reads and referees scientific papers all the time.



http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/jadczyk_cv.html

He states:

So, accusing someone of lying with math needs, as a rule, someone else who is math literate. That’s me. Yet in the case of “Progressive collapse” this is not even needed (and it would be time-consuming and incomprehensible to the average reader for me). It is sufficient for you, the reader, to just be able to read and not be scared by pseudo-scientific jargon used in the article. The jargon is being used there for a clear purpose – to hide behind it the zero scientific value of the paper. I know that there is no scientific value to this paper because I read and referee scientific papers all the time and have been doing so for years. When you are not scared by the jargon, you, too, can easily see that the author gives himself away rather obviously.

Not all journals are created equally.

That is really all that needs to be said, and when a good journal gets a bad paper that makes it through, it gets retracted.