Jim MacDonald wrote:
iowa61,
I don't believe that anybody here has an issue with Dr. Jantz's credentials or his scientific methods. The main issue for most people here, including myself, is that the info for Dr. Jantz's report (no I haven't read it) was supplied by TIGHAR and Ric Gillespie.
The issue that people here have is with TIGHAR, Ric Gillespie and Jeff Glickman. After many years of following TIGHAR's search for AE and the repeated claims that they found the smoking gun, most people feel that TIGHAR's version of "Scientific Method" is anything but. Many reports that were promised to be forth coming and to be "Peer Reviewed" were never released.
Because of this, any info provided by TIGHAR is considered suspect to begin with and any results obtained with it is tainted by the feeling that the person doing the research is being manipulated by TIGHAR or the results are biased towards TIGHAR's conclusion due to the way the material was presented to the researcher by TIGHAR, what material was given to the researcher by TIGHAR and what was purposely left out and not given to the researcher.
Mac
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.
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.
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.
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 am a writer, not a scholar. But in my lay opinion, I've seen no manner of criticisms on this forum that approach the required standards.