iowa61 wrote:
First, participants on this forum have in fact outright dismissed Dr. Jantz's work and by inference his credentials and reputation and those of the peer review scholars and the scientific journal of publication.
Nope - I for one didn't dismiss Dr.Jantz' credentials - just this report. Take another read of it, don't be swayed either way by "peer reviews", "very high bar[s]", "integrity" etc and just question what you are reading - impartially.
iowa61 wrote:
Second, Jantz's paper--in its entirety-which would include methodologies, integrity of data, scientific validity etc., has been peer-reviewed by scholars who are infinitely more qualified than anyone on this forum. After critiques were addressed satisfactorily the paper was then published in a prestigious academic journal.
This infers that you know who the peer reviewers are/were, as well as their credentials. Do you? And if so, who are they? If not then the statement holds no water.
iowa61 wrote:
The participants in this forum do not seem to recognize nor appreciate that process is a very high bar indeed. They do not seem to recognize that the peer reviewers do not share their suspicions about what was and was not "left out" and for valid reason. They do not seem to recognize that the peer reviewers are quite capable of detecting fraud. They do not seem to recognize that is the whole point of rigorous, scholarly peer review.
Again, a lot of supposition there: "very high bar", "the peer reviewers do not share their suspicions" etc. I think I'm happy with the process, having had many years' experience of peer reviews, technical approvals etc. In my experience it's not their remit to detect fraud, so I think it's a stretch to say that they might be capable of detecting it. It also seems that you know a lot about the peer reviewers. So again, who were they? Might they have a vested interest? Or were there in fact any? Just a fair question with no malice intended.
iowa61 wrote:
Moreover, there are very well established and documented protocols and standards for critique of published papers. However, they too require submissions to meet a high, scholarly bar.
I've seen a lot of published papers: standards vary. So yes, there are established protocols for
some, but none for others. Established protocols do not guarantee omission of errors or conflicts of interest. Or prevent the skewing of 'evidence' by the omission of anything that might disprove the expected outcome.
I think in this case, Dr Jantz was most likely supplied with a bunch of very old, biased garbage. And though Jantz may have done his best, he's only managed to put a mild lustre on what's basically a heap of age-hardened cr*p.
But irrespective of any of the above, you'd have to ask if anything which is generated by TIGHAR can be trusted? That question needs to be asked because that organization has done very little except denigrate anyone who disagrees with their latest theories. Can we reasonably expect that TIGHAR is always right and everyone else always wrong?