I Question The Modern Science Process!

[Windevoid]

I decided to make a thread just for this.

 

I sent two articles to peer-reviewed journals, one of them to seven different journals. Although some of the journals were published by the same company, each journal is a separate journal, even in a series of journals.

 

(One article is still being checked, but the editor is currently on a vacation or trip.)

 

What happened was the editors just "threw them out". They just said "not suitable" or something. The articles didn't even get to the peer review stage! I don't know what the peer-reviewers would say, but they would probably not even check the claim.

 

I question, then, how science could accept new ideas! I question whether it follows evidence. If articles don't even get to the peer-review stage, then how can the claims ever possibly get checked! How could unusual claims ever get verified?

 

I honestly don't think that claims could be checked with the current system!

[sheever]

great post!

[ACG52]

Article submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal must have at least some degree of scientific accuracy.

 

Crank ideas are rejected out of hand. So if you want to suggest that electrons don't exist, or that nuclear explosions were faked, or that little green men live in your basement, you're out of luck.

 

Thus your submissions went in the circular file.

[Windevoid]

Article submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal must have at least some degree of scientific accuracy.

 

Crank ideas are rejected out of hand. So if you want to suggest that electrons don't exist, or that nuclear explosions were faked, or that little green men live in your basement, you're out of luck.

 

Thus your submissions went in the circular file.

"Crank ideas are rejected out of hand."

 

You just stated my point.

[ACG52]

"Crank ideas are rejected out of hand."

 

You just stated my point.

And you just made mine. Your ideas have no scientific basis, they seem to be the result of late night drinking sessions in your room.

[uncool]

Windevoid, you don't seem to understand the differences between "unusual claims" and "crank ideas". One of those differences is the following: cranks often lack pretty much any understanding of the current scientific theory that they are trying to replace. You have shown this to be true; you have shown that you do not understand several aspects of special relativity in your other thread. Unusual ideas are often presented alongside the mainstream ideas, in order to showcase the differences between them; this requires the author to be conversant in such ideas.

=Uncool-

[ACG52]

Why don't you put it on the web somewhere and post a link to it.

[Windevoid]

Why don't you put it on the web somewhere and post a link to it.

(Not everything was sent in.)

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77427-basis-for-how-to-build-a-free-energy-overunity-motor-generator/?hl=%2Bfree+%2Benergy

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77092-is-relativity-wrong/?hl=%2Brelativity+%2Bwrong

 

https://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Is-Modern-Electricity-Theory-Wrong-Incomplete-Could-Free-Energy-be-Real?page=1

[ACG52]

That crank nonsense is what you submitted to a peer reviewed journal, and then you wonder why they threw it out?

Edited July 22, 2013 by ACG52

[John Cuthber]

The problem is that Windevoid doesn't realise that the editor is part of the peer review process.

Editors are also scientific peers, perfectly capable of reviewing some papers- including spotting unevinced dross.

[swansont]

I decided to make a thread just for this.

 

I sent two articles to peer-reviewed journals, one of them to seven different journals. Although some of the journals were published by the same company, each journal is a separate journal, even in a series of journals.

 

(One article is still being checked, but the editor is currently on a vacation or trip.)

 

What happened was the editors just "threw them out". They just said "not suitable" or something. The articles didn't even get to the peer review stage! I don't know what the peer-reviewers would say, but they would probably not even check the claim.

 

I question, then, how science could accept new ideas! I question whether it follows evidence. If articles don't even get to the peer-review stage, then how can the claims ever possibly get checked! How could unusual claims ever get verified?

 

I honestly don't think that claims could be checked with the current system!

Most ideas are wrong, and some trivially so. If your idea is trivially wrong, then it gets rejected quickly. If your submissions were anything like what you post here, they are trivially wrong.

 

New ideas are accepted all the time. They have the advantage of not contradicting experiments that have already been performed.

 

 

 

The modern science process isn't perfect, but rejecting crank nonsense isn't one of its flaws.

[Ophiolite]

Windevoid, at what point in your science education did you conclude you had a better understanding of science than persons who had devoted their adult life to tough education and hard working, aggressively evaluated, research? I am genuinely curious as to what leads you to think you have something of major significance to offer the world of science. Now I am not saying you do not have something unique, but I cannot imagine the mindset that would lead someone lacking scientific credentials to arrive at that viewpoint of their own worth.

 

I am not a modest person. (Although some would say I have much to be modest about.) Yet for all my lack of intellectual modesty I cannot even begin to think in terms of making the kind of criticisms of science you make so seemingly carelessly. Can you explain your rationale and justification for this approach, please.

[CharonY]

The underlying thought process is truly astonishing. If I submitted a paper in journals that I identified as potentially suitable and (barring submissions to journals with high rejection rates such as Nature or Science) got rejected not once, but seven times on the editor level, I would be strongly questioning the quality of my work.

Especially if the rejections includes not the common "out-of-scope" reason, but rather states that the work is unsuitable as a whole.

Yet certain persons are apparently unable to find mistakes in themselves. This is a pity, as it implies that those persons are also unable to improve themselves.

[Windevoid]

Windevoid, at what point in your science education did you conclude you had a better understanding of science than persons who had devoted their adult life to tough education and hard working, aggressively evaluated, research? I am genuinely curious as to what leads you to think you have something of major significance to offer the world of science. Now I am not saying you do not have something unique, but I cannot imagine the mindset that would lead someone lacking scientific credentials to arrive at that viewpoint of their own worth.

 

I am not a modest person. (Although some would say I have much to be modest about.) Yet for all my lack of intellectual modesty I cannot even begin to think in terms of making the kind of criticisms of science you make so seemingly carelessly. Can you explain your rationale and justification for this approach, please.

I did my own experiments with batteries, wires, and a multimeter. My fan disappeared, and I think my LED just died, though.

The underlying thought process is truly astonishing. If I submitted a paper in journals that I identified as potentially suitable and (barring submissions to journals with high rejection rates such as Nature or Science) got rejected not once, but seven times on the editor level, I would be strongly questioning the quality of my work.

Especially if the rejections includes not the common "out-of-scope" reason, but rather states that the work is unsuitable as a whole.

Yet certain persons are apparently unable to find mistakes in themselves. This is a pity, as it implies that those persons are also unable to improve themselves.

In what world is sending numerous science experiments, and perhaps claims, to be checked and reviewed in a science journal wrong?

The underlying thought process is truly astonishing. If I submitted a paper in journals that I identified as potentially suitable and (barring submissions to journals with high rejection rates such as Nature or Science) got rejected not once, but seven times on the editor level, I would be strongly questioning the quality of my work.

Especially if the rejections includes not the common "out-of-scope" reason, but rather states that the work is unsuitable as a whole.

Yet certain persons are apparently unable to find mistakes in themselves. This is a pity, as it implies that those persons are also unable to improve themselves.

If it's not real, they should at least tell me why my experiments got the results they did or something that's enough like why.

[John Cuthber]

I did my own experiments with batteries, wires, and a multimeter. My fan disappeared, and I think my LED just died, though.

In what world is sending numerous science experiments, and perhaps claims, to be checked and reviewed in a science journal wrong?

If it's not real, they should at least tell me why my experiments got the results they did or something that's enough like why.

"I did my own experiments with batteries, wires, and a multimeter. My fan disappeared, and I think my LED just died, though."

You really think that saying that helps your case?

"In what world is sending numerous science experiments, and perhaps claims, to be checked and reviewed in a science journal wrong?"

This one.

Because the experiments are poorly planned an undertaken, the claims are not based on anything real (in particular, they can't be based on the experiments, because the experiments were too deeply flawed),

 

"If it's not real, they should at least tell me why my experiments got the results they did or something that's enough like why."

 

Not really.

Editors are busy people. They have enough to do dealing with papers which might actually provide progress in science. It's not their job to explain to you why you have no idea.

You seem to have mistaken them for science teachers.

I strongly suggest that you bother the right group next time. ( don't forget to offer to pay them)

[Bignose]

I have actually given you the road for this in many of your posts. In particular see your anti-relativity post.

 

The hurdle to jump to get attention from these editors is very easy. Demonstrate that your idea makes better predictions than the current idea.

 

Make that plot of measured values, the best prediction by the current model, and your model. If you predictions agree better than the current best, then your model becomes the best.

 

Had you read any of the other papers these journals publish, almost all of them follow this pattern. It's a good pattern... Science has made a lot of progress this way.

 

Since you didn't bother to reply to my post in any of the other threads, I suspect you cannot make such a plot as described above. And as such, I'm not surprised you were ignored.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Bignose

[swansont]

 

In what world is sending numerous science experiments, and perhaps claims, to be checked and reviewed in a science journal wrong?

 

 

To echo John Cuthber, this one. All scientists I know do several rounds of informal review with colleagues before they would dream of going to a journal.

[Ophiolite]

I did my own experiments with batteries, wires, and a multimeter. My fan disappeared, and I think my LED just died, though.

The above was your response to my question "Windevoid, at what point in your science education did you conclude you had a better understanding of science than persons who had devoted their adult life to tough education and hard working, aggressively evaluated, research? ....... I cannot even begin to think in terms of making the kind of criticisms of science you make so seemingly carelessly. Can you explain your rationale and justification for this approach, please."

 

Your answer fails completely to answer my question. Are you seriously comparing some simple electrical experiments with a lifetime of study? I have done experiments with electrical circuits and inclined planes and chemical apparatus and cloud chambers and geiger counters. I have spent months of time mapping geological outcrops, Many more months studying rocks in thin section. I've laid out geophones, set of explosions and hand cranked the analysis of the data. Etc, etc.None of that in any way equips me to challenge the methodology of science. So, I ask again, what gives you the belief that you know enough to do so?

[CharonY]

To come to this conclusion the chief element is an inflated ego. Inflated ego and ignorance. The two elements are an inflated ego and ignorance and laziness. The three elements are an inflated ego, ignorance, laziness and the inability to deal with criticism...

Amongst the main reasons are elements such as.. I should stop now.

[Arete]

What happened was the editors just "threw them out". They just said "not suitable" or something. The articles didn't even get to the peer review stage! I don't know what the peer-reviewers would say, but they would probably not even check the claim.

 

Editorial rejection is a part of peer review - 7+ editors have reviewed your paper and found it too deeply flawed to warrant in depth review, or too far removed from the standard content of the journal to ever be considered for publication.

 

While rejection is a part of scientific publishing and you should expect to have more papers bounced the first time than accepted, 7+ editorial rejections is excessive and suggests a manuscript is being submitted to grossly inappropriate venues, or is so fundamentally flawed a cursory glance over the manuscript reveals it to be irredeemable.

 

If I had been canned by over 7 editors I'd be looking very closely at why the editors weren't interested in my work, rather than dismissing their comments.

[Phi for All]

Crank ideas are rejected out of hand.

 

I'm not sure I like this phrase, since the definition of "out of hand" is that it was done without thinking or discussion. While an editor might stop the process before it gets to be discussed, he's not doing so without thinking. He's started to read the submission but found something flawed in the foundation of the work, an assumption made or conclusion drawn that makes anything else the editor might read seem suspect.

 

If you were showing me your new car design, I might take the time to explain that it's not efficient to have a 90 degree angle on the windshield, but I'd stop you immediately, seemingly "out of hand", and just reject the concept outright if I saw you had square wheels. I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you why your idea won't work.

[ACG52]

 

 

but I'd stop you immediately, seemingly "out of hand", and just reject the concept outright if I saw you had square wheels. I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you why your idea won't work.

Square wheels it was. Take a look at post #8 to see what was submitted.

Edited July 25, 2013 by ACG52

[Phi for All]

Square wheels it was. Take a look at post #8 to see what was submitted.

 

It seems to the person presenting the idea that it gets rejected "out of hand", without thinking. The truth is, the editor can easily see that this perpetual motion device doesn't account for any workload placed on the system. He doesn't have to reject it because perpetual motion is impossible, he rejects it because the system shown can't do more than move around for a long time. There is no extra power to operate something else, because as soon as you burden the system it shuts down.

 

There have been over-unity devices that were submitted for review. The one I remember most was Joseph Newman's. He made a motor out of a big electromagnet that he spun like a gyroscope. He claimed this produced an EM field large enough to continue to run the motor AND power other devices. This guy had lots of people fooled. He was even on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. His claim was like honey to bees for people like me who knew some science but weren't specialized in it. Here was the Holy Grail, two scientific concepts put together in a unique way that changes normal laws to allow something new and exciting. But Newman was a big old fake, and he bilked many investors out of their money. He could never answer review questions but kept insisting he was being stifled because he was right, instead of being criticized for being wrong.