"Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580

Eugene Shubert

In article ,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
"Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580

Eugene Shubert


I remember a quote that was something like "It doesn't get into
Fundamentals of Physics Letters unless it's wrong." Also a quote about
APS journals soon filling library shelves faster than the speed of light,
but not violating relativity since no information would be transmitted.

Maybe you're taking the quote more seriously than Dyson meant it.

--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible

What seems to hyave been overlooked is that the insuring of validity is only a
secondary puirpose of peer review. The primary purpose is to prevent a
significant challenge to the credibility of accepted scientific dogma. In this
regard the peer review process is much more akin to the "protection of the
faith" activities of the Catholic Church and of Islam.

Perfectly Innocent wrote:

"Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580

“Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific
Speculation”

Empirically discredited.

http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

H. E. Retic wrote:

What seems to hyave been overlooked is that the insuring of validity is only a
secondary puirpose of peer review. The primary purpose is to prevent a
significant challenge to the credibility of accepted scientific dogma. In this
regard the peer review process is much more akin to the "protection of the
faith" activities of the Catholic Church and of Islam.

All for naught. Unreviewed papers are stored in Arxiv. Nothing is
prevented.

Now how do you account for the publication of Einstein's 1905 papers, at
least two of which went against established theory. To wit, his paper on
the electrodynamics of moving bodies and his paper on the photoelectric
effect? If what you said were true, then he never would have been
published anywhere.

But, when have you ever been concerned with the truth of what is said?
Lies come out of your nose when you exhale.

Bob Kolker

In addition, good critical peer reviews generally make for a better
paper. Reviewers comment on style, previous work not cited, weakness in
logic, lack of clarity (my biggest sin), etc. I know of no reputable
journal that rejects a paper out of hand by a simple command "REJECT".
Even a rejected paper can often be rejuvenated by reading the reviewers
comments. OTOH improper use of peer reviews is a sign of an incompetent
editor, in which case, move to another journal.

Robert J. Kolker wrote:



H. E. Retic wrote:

What seems to hyave been overlooked is that the insuring of validity
is only a
secondary puirpose of peer review. The primary purpose is to prevent a
significant challenge to the credibility of accepted scientific
dogma. In this
regard the peer review process is much more akin to the "protection
of the
faith" activities of the Catholic Church and of Islam.


All for naught. Unreviewed papers are stored in Arxiv. Nothing is
prevented.

Now how do you account for the publication of Einstein's 1905 papers,
at least two of which went against established theory. To wit, his
paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies and his paper on the
photoelectric effect? If what you said were true, then he never would
have been published anywhere.

But, when have you ever been concerned with the truth of what is said?
Lies come out of your nose when you exhale.

Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker wrote in message
...


H. E. Retic wrote:

What seems to hyave been overlooked is that the insuring of validity is
only a
secondary puirpose of peer review. The primary purpose is to prevent a
significant challenge to the credibility of accepted scientific dogma.
In this
regard the peer review process is much more akin to the "protection of
the
faith" activities of the Catholic Church and of Islam.

All for naught. Unreviewed papers are stored in Arxiv. Nothing is
prevented.

Not entirely true. Papers are occasionally purged from Arxiv for arriving
at the 'wrong' conclusions (according to posters in prior threads).

Now how do you account for the publication of Einstein's 1905 papers, at
least two of which went against established theory. To wit, his paper on
the electrodynamics of moving bodies and his paper on the photoelectric
effect? If what you said were true, then he never would have been
published anywhere.

1. Einstein was an insider -- a reviewer of papers himself, with the right
"connections."
2. His paper provided no significant new math (already received from
Poincare, Lorentz, etc.) so it was familiar.
3. The metaphysical change contained in his paper was the Kantian
observer-centered universe fallacy that had become tremendously popular in
academia of the time, over the prior 20 years or so. So there was no real
philosophical problem.

Things were slightly looser 100 years ago. Aside from the fact that women
couldn't publish in their own names (i.e. Mileva).

But, when have you ever been concerned with the truth of what is said?
Lies come out of your nose when you exhale.

The gratuitous ad hominem closer.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
"Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580

Eugene Shubert

I remember a quote that was something like "It doesn't get into
Fundamentals of Physics Letters unless it's wrong." Also a quote about
APS journals soon filling library shelves faster than the speed of light,
but not violating relativity since no information would be transmitted.

Gregory, Your reference to faster-than-light, non-luminal journals is
hilarious.

Maybe you're taking the quote more seriously than Dyson meant it.

I'm certain that Dyson meant his remark to be taken in a lighthearted
way but the question remains. How much of his statement is true? "Do
physicists understand their own peer-reviewed literature?"

We've all read stuff in the "scientific literature" that we know for
a fact would have a much easier time qualifying as "highfalutin
pomposity" than "a clear exposition." How do we know that physicists
today aren't running amok, pretending that they understand everything
and successfully publishing incomprehensible gibberish on the remote
edge of decipherability and clarity?

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580

Perfectly Innocent wrote:
pomposity" than "a clear exposition." How do we know that physicists
today aren't running amok, pretending that they understand everything
and successfully publishing incomprehensible gibberish on the remote
edge of decipherability and clarity?

By learning the field. Then you can read papers with discernment.

Bob Kolker

In article ,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
...
In article ,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
"Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580

Eugene Shubert

I remember a quote that was something like "It doesn't get into
Fundamentals of Physics Letters unless it's wrong." Also a quote about
APS journals soon filling library shelves faster than the speed of light,
but not violating relativity since no information would be transmitted.

Gregory, Your reference to faster-than-light, non-luminal journals is
hilarious.

Maybe you're taking the quote more seriously than Dyson meant it.

I'm certain that Dyson meant his remark to be taken in a lighthearted
way but the question remains. How much of his statement is true? "Do
physicists understand their own peer-reviewed literature?"

We've all read stuff in the "scientific literature" that we know for
a fact would have a much easier time qualifying as "highfalutin
pomposity" than "a clear exposition." How do we know that physicists
today aren't running amok, pretending that they understand everything
and successfully publishing incomprehensible gibberish on the remote
edge of decipherability and clarity?

Every quip like that has some grain of truth to it, I'm sure. But then we
have the interesting situation of some people saying journals will publish
anything the reviewers don't understand, while at the same time other
people are saying journals won't publish anything that doesn't look like
"the party line". Luckily there are lots of journals, some more tolerant
of novelty than others.

--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible