I will be impressed when scince can create matter.

bullshit.
you are the one that baited into this argument.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But that's not peer review. That's a bunch of scientists who agree with each other getting together. It's called a conference.

50 out of how many? You have no idea what is statistically significant. Its the report on a meeting. That's all it is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

:shrug:

You accuse anyone and everyone who disagrees with you of baiting, or trolling, or flaming.

OTOH, you can't make a decent argument.

And don't know jackshit about most everything you post on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did they?
Or was it 50 scientists at a conference and the article about what they said was written by ONE reporter (without peer review)?

 

exactly.
publish in a peer reviewed journal.
refuting what i learned in school.
the journal never posted a retraction saying the article was in error.

 

:shrug:

 

Are you this obtuse on purpose, or are you really that much of a simpleton?

There was NO review of the article. The journal would only post a retraction if the article were peer reviewed after publication and shown to be false. But since THERE WAS NO PEER REVIEW, the journal takes no stance on the truth or falsity of anything the article was reporting on.

 

can you make a post without an ad hom?

so, an article published in a peer reviewed journal that directly refutes what i learned in school would not be reviewed?
is that what you are saying?

 

Yes. It is a piece of reporting on a conference. It it is not a research paper presented for review. It is not reviewed. Whether it refutes what you learned in school or it doesn't. It reportage. Not reviewed.

This is the same thing that's been said in every recent post addressed to you. Are you having trouble with your reading comprehension?

 

you DO realize that you are essentially saying no one read the article.

apparently not.

 

No, I am saying that it is not peer reviewed.

It does not go through this process.

 

really?
nobody will write to the editor about this so called error?

 

What error? That a reporting article isn't peer reviewed? It isn't supposed to be reviewed.

 

read the thread alex.

the short answer is YES at least a few people would definitely write to the editor telling them the article was in error.
the journal never published any such acknowledgments that the article was in error.

this can mean two things:
1. "science" doesn't do retractions. this is not true because "science" does indeed do retractions.
2. the article wasn't in error.

 

I've figured it out.

You don't really pay any attention to other posts, you just keep repeating the same things over and over.

There isn't any way for a reporting article to be in error, unless the reporter lies about what was said at the conference.

But that's been said so many times now, and you haven't paid any attention to it. So I can't really imagine that this time would be any different.

You truly deserve your suspensions.

I guess I'll just have to report you for baiting.

 

that is exactly what is being said here.
the author stated the conference reached a conclusion that directly refutes what i was taught in school.
so, did the author lie alex?

 

Dismissed.

 

with "science" standing its grounds.

 

Dismissed as irrelevant to any type of conversation.

 

i would think long and hard about what has been said here if i were you.