Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #392116

Re: Request for Peer Review

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/11/2016 9:02 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2016 10:10 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> For example, when [someone] who has an education as electrical engineer
>>> wants to publish a paper on gravitation, the peer review has to be done
>>> by physicists, preferably those who are experts in theories of
>>> gravitation, and not by electrical engineers.
>>
>> Which is not what he has solicited here, has he?
>
> Yes, HE HAS.

Sorry, but no. You are not a physicist. If you consider yourself one of 
the solicited, then you prove the case.

Practicing physicists who are experts in the theory of gravitation do 
not constitute the majority of the posters in sci.physics.relativity. 
There are maybe a couple of exceptions to that statement.

Therefore by soliciting here, he is not seeking reviews from practicing 
physicists who are preferably experts in theories of gravitation.

>
>> Nor has he solicited peers from HIS field of expertise.
>
> Because that would not make sense.  HE IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL PHYSICIST.

Nevertheless, consider what he EXPLICITLY classed as a peer. Anyone with 
a master's degree. NOT, as you stated, a physicist. NOT, as you stated, 
someone with expertise in theories of gravitation. Thus by HIS 
declaration, not yours, he is not really seeking the peers that you 
would rightly suggest.

>
>> If a plumber wanted to get a review of a paper on a medical treatment
>> but did not in fact submit it for review by medical doctors or medical
>> researchers, but instead walked into a coffee shop and asked those
>> people to provide a "peer review", that would not be to the claimed
>> purpose in either sense of the word.
>
> OMG.  Honey, the buses don’t go where you live, yes?  In analogy, you were
> STUPIDLY suggesting to the PLUMBER, by asking the PLUMBER why he did not do
> that (instead), that the PLUMBER should ask HIS FELLOW PLUMBERS for the
> review of the paper that HE HAD WRITTEN on a MEDICAL treatment HE INVENTED.

Nor has he solicited reviews from practicing physicists who are 
preferably experts in theories of gravitation, because he came to the 
moral equivalent of a coffee shop (here) to ask around for one, and he 
was EXPLICITLY nonspecific about asking for opinions from physicists.

>
> If you don’t get it now, then sorry, I don’t have the crayons to explain it
> to you.

Nor the dexterity.
I gather the Richter scale was invented to measure your father's 
disappointment.

>
> EOD
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Request for Peer Review Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 10:08 -0700
  Re: Request for Peer Review Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-08-25 19:20 +0200
    Re: Request for Peer Review Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 09:31 -0700
  Re: Request for Peer Review "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-25 10:29 -0700
    Re: Request for Peer Review Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 07:34 -0700
      Re: Request for Peer Review astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-27 09:23 -0700
  Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 13:50 -0500
    Re: Request for Peer Review Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 15:26 -0700
    Re: Request for Peer Review Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-27 09:15 +0200
      Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 08:38 -0500
        Re: Request for Peer Review Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 09:03 -0700
          Re: Request for Peer Review "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-06 09:15 -0700
            Re: Request for Peer Review "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-06 10:46 -0700
          Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 17:08 -0500
            Re: Request for Peer Review benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-06 19:23 -0400
        Re: Request for Peer Review Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-06 19:04 +0200
          Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 17:20 -0500
            Re: Request for Peer Review benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-06 19:38 -0400
              Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 07:29 -0500
            Re: Request for Peer Review Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-07 21:57 +0200
              Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 15:22 -0500
                Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 15:26 -0500
                Re: Request for Peer Review Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-10 17:10 +0200
                Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:57 -0500
                Re: Request for Peer Review Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-12 04:02 +0200
                Re: Request for Peer Review Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 21:50 -0500
                Re: Request for Peer Review "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 06:09 -0700
  Re: Request for Peer Review pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-08-27 19:53 -0700
  Re: Request for Peer Review RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 21:10 -0700
    Re: Request for Peer Review Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 09:20 -0700

csiph-web