Peer-Review in Science, Discrimination and Public Interest

[CrosbyStreet]

"You have received your answers." Sorry, I don't feel that way. I don't agree that when evil is detected one should put up with it, no matter how much he's told that it's none of his business to rid the world of it.

 

[Zigner]

"You have received your answers." Sorry, I don't feel that way. I don't agree that when evil is detected one should put up with it, no matter how much he's told that it's none of his business to rid the world of it.

Publish your own facts.

 

[tranquility]

"You can't." If I can't then I should be content w/ the falsities to persist. That's, of course, immoral, let alone unlawful under the circumstances in my second post (the deposition example) if I put up w/ it and don't bring it to court. That's my gut feeling.

Does that mean I can sue you for continuing to claim certain things are "false" that you really have no idea about? Also, claiming that publishing "false" things is immoral and unlawful?

 

[CrosbyStreet]

"You don't have a cause of action to bring this to court. Feel free to publish your own facts, opinions, whatever. America, what a country!"

I don't agree that my tax dollars should go for someone else publishing nonsense. Plain and simple. American way too. I may publish whatever I wish w/ my own dollars but I don't agree public money to be spent by someone, entrenched, publishing stuff which damages society. This must be fought and I'll pursue it. Your answers don't help me in this but maybe there will be others who might.

 

[CrosbyStreet]

"Does that mean I can sue you for continuing to claim certain things are "false" that you really have no idea about? Also, claiming that publishing "false" things is immoral and unlawful?"

I think it's unlawful to prevent, as an Editor-in-Chief of a journal published by a publicly funded society, publishing of texts exposing falsities causing substantial damage to society. A way must be found such Editors to be held accountable. This is the point of this thread. I'm not an Editor-in-Chief, let alone someone preventing the publication of anything, so don't aim at me. I'm not the target.

 

[CrosbyStreet]

"Publish your own facts." I already addressed that. There are no my facts. Facts I'm talking about are not mine.

 

[Zigner]

"Publish your own facts." I already addressed that. There are no my facts. Facts I'm talking about are not mine.

Facts don't belong to anyone. Publish your own findings. Publish your own book presenting the facts.

Are you really this obtuse? (rhetorical question)

 

[CrosbyStreet]

"Publish your own findings." Of course. That's the point of this whole thread.

"Publish your own book presenting the facts." Aha, let the enormous public money be spent on nonsense severely damaging society and don't notice it but publish your little book presenting whatever. Bad advice. If that's all you can tell me then that's too bad. I don't agree with it, I already told you that.

 

[CSO286]

"Publish your own findings." Of course. That's the point of this whole thread.

"Publish your own book presenting the facts." Aha, let the enormous public money be spent on nonsense severely damaging society and don't notice it but publish your little book presenting whatever. Bad advice. If that's all you can tell me then that's too bad. I don't agree with it, I already told you that.

Simply because you disagree with the information given to you doesn't mean that you have a cause of action. It doesn't make you right.

 

[CrosbyStreet]

I may or may not have a cause of action but you didn't convince me either way. Your tendency is to present the case as something personal, a matter of private opinion, which it isn't. Once the case is viewed as a personal vendetta or something of the sort, the answer is easy and it can be dismissed at once. However, what I'm talking about has a vast public impact and that cannot be ignored by reverting into menial personality issues and battles. There's a bigger picture and solutions should be sought which scale it.

 

[CSO286]

I may or may not have a cause of action but you didn't convince me either way. Your tendency is to present the case as something personal, a matter of private opinion, which it isn't. Once the case is viewed as a personal vendetta or something of the sort, the answer is easy and it can be dismissed at once. However, what I'm talking about has a vast public impact and that cannot be ignored by reverting into menial personality issues and battles. There's a bigger picture and solutions should be sought which scale it.

You know what?

It doesn't matter if the we're talking about the government-funded Flat Earth Society Journal and you can prove that the earth is round. You cannot force them to publish a contrary opinion. You simply cannot. Nor can you sue them for publishing an erroneous opinion. Regardless of their funding source.

 

[tranquility]

"Does that mean I can sue you for continuing to claim certain things are "false" that you really have no idea about? Also, claiming that publishing "false" things is immoral and unlawful?"

I think it's unlawful to prevent, as an Editor-in-Chief of a journal published by a publicly funded society, publishing of texts exposing falsities causing substantial damage to society. A way must be found such Editors to be held accountable. This is the point of this thread. I'm not an Editor-in-Chief, let alone someone preventing the publication of anything, so don't aim at me. I'm not the target.

You are the "editor" of your words. You are wrong. Can I sue you?

 

[CrosbyStreet]

"It doesn't matter if the we're talking about the government-funded Flat Earth Society Journal and you can prove that the earth is round. You cannot force them to publish a contrary opinion. You simply cannot. Nor can you sue them for publishing an erroneous opinion. Regardless of their funding source."

That I doubt. I surely cannot sue them for publishing an erroneous opinion but I should be able to sue them for preventing the publishing of definitive proof that their opinion is erroneous. Especially if the journal is funded by the government. Otherwise there will be enormous abuse of the system. By the way, notice that there's no government-funded Flat Earth Society Journal, neither is there government-funded Astrology or UFO Journal. If it were the way you present it then anything goes. It isn't that way, though. Academia (primarily government-funded) polices itself to a great extent. However, it turns out there are sticky entrenched enclaves which are in need of some external help to be straightened out. Their self-serving nature just cannot be relied upon for that matter. This is what this conversation is about.

 

[CrosbyStreet]

"You are the "editor" of your words. You are wrong. Can I sue you?"

You can if you are presenting a definitive proof that my theory is wrong but I'm preventing you from publishing your proof in my publicly-funded journal. However, not only am I not preventing you from publishing anything, let alone definitive proof, but I don't even have a government-funded journal. So, that's some kind of an inadequate attempt to draw analogies.

 

[Zigner]

...I should be able to sue them for preventing the publishing...

They're not preventing you from publishing anything.

Good day.

Good luck.