Re: Wolter on peer review.

Seppo Renfors wrote:

Tom McDonald wrote:

[..]

Let's see what that [...] contained before it was wrested from its context by Septic:

"It is useful to use peer reviewed journal articles. However, that process is not the only way to knock the rough edges off of a professional study, or to point out problems with the work."

These two sentences begin the paragraph that the following completes:

It
is possible that the folks who reviewed his stuff were not
competent, or were not paying attention, or owed him a favor. It
is possible that Wolter got criticism that he should have taken
to heart and changed his reports accordingly, and didn't.

However, one cannot assume that, and I don't think there is
evidence of any of that in this case. If one were concerned, one
could contact the named individuals and ask them (except for Dr.
Mather, of course).


Talk about preparing to prop up the pre-Columbian brick wall again!!

Support your accusations against me, or STFU.

First sling baseless *** at Wolter personally (he doesn't know
competent people to review his work)

Didn't do that. Check.

and label 8 personas as
"INCOMPETENT"

Didn't do that. Check.

- then resort to a weak counter, in much lesser strength
than the *** slinging

Didn't do that. Check.

and TOM talks about "professionalism"

Did do that. Septic got one right.

- but he
doesn't resort to the same himself!

Didn't do that. Check.

As he belatedly states "I don't think there is evidence of any of that
in this case" -

Didn't do this belatedly (as it still is not possible for more than one thing to occupy the same screen space at the same time--and be legible, anyway), but at precisely the correct place--*after* the hypotheticals to the alternative. Check.

then WHY make the totally baseless allegations in the
first place? It is to PLANT THE SEED of doubt for others followers of
his Dogma to create fictions, eg like Doug Weller's odious implied
"Nazi supporter" view and like madness Tom has previously supported!

Didn't do that. Check.

So, of the seven possible places for Septic to misrepresent my post, he did in fact misrepresent me six times.

I have been entirely up-front about my views of Wolter and Nielsen's book. In addition, I have expressed my interest in seeing that it gets a fair hearing, and useful feedback, in this ng.

I may not have said it before, but I will say it now:

I want W&N's book to get the attention it deserves, to test possible problems with it, and most especially to get useful input from intelligent and trained people who can point out deficiencies in the work so that W&N can correct them.

This work has the potential to advance the knowledge of the KRS issue more than any other work, IMHO. Whether this turns out to support its authenticity or the reverse, knowledge will have been advanced IFF the result of the 'sifting and winnowing' is a body of tested information that can be generally relied on in the wider discussion.
.

Quantcast