Comments on: Killing Crankery with Bayesian Reasoning: The Kooky & Illogical Postflaviana Review

By: Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier — Fri, 03 May 2019 14:25:43 +0000

In reply to em45transproud@yahoo.com. There is a sucker born every minute. Anyone who buys that, is a sucker.

By: em45transproud@yahoo.com

em45transproud@yahoo.com — Sat, 27 Apr 2019 01:24:20 +0000

I have heard Atwill say planes would slow down and destruct themselves and destruct the exterior of skyscrapers as the two collide, where that clearly did not happen on 9/11, as we all saw.

http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF%20FILES%20sept%20clues%20research/NooGood.gif

Atwill is clearly a crank.

By: Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier — Mon, 08 Oct 2018 17:30:27 +0000

In reply to mark hunter. Yes! Thanks. Fixed.

By: Jerry Russell

Jerry Russell — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 00:25:54 +0000

Further reply here…

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/richard-carrier-replies.2456/#post-10520

Regards,

-Jerry

By: mark hunter

mark hunter — Fri, 05 Oct 2018 10:53:06 +0000

“Cranks Don’t Like Peer Review Because They Can Never Get Anything Passed It” . Just a typo – Passed, or Past?

And keep up the fine work.

By: Frederic Christie

Frederic Christie — Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:12:08 +0000

O’Neill is still openly trading, in response to PZ dipping his toes into the waters, in using the cranks as a reason to ignore you. It really is awesome how he continues to pretend that the priors favor interpreting the New Testament as an attempt to capture a historical man.

By: Jerry Russell

Jerry Russell — Fri, 05 Oct 2018 01:02:10 +0000

Hello Richard,

I’ll begin by admitting where I was clearly, flagrantly and undeniably wrong. I did indeed miss where you said that “Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text”, these being anonymous reviewers. So it was what I consider a “standard academic peer review process”.

As an explanation of how I came to believe what I did, I will offer this quote from the Wiley article that you linked (with the text “That’s wildly false”):

“There are normally three distinct stages in a book’s life when the services of a peer reviewer may be called upon. The first is in assessing an initial book proposal (and perhaps sample chapter), which may either have arrived on the Commissioning Editor’s desk unsolicited, or be a project the editor was actively looking for. The second instance the peer review process can be used is once a book project has been contracted with the publisher, and the author submits a batch of chapters or even a complete manuscript to be checked. While this is not necessary for most books, it can be invaluable when the author or publisher need specific content checked for accuracy or readability. The final time the peer review process is most frequently employed is after a book has published, which is especially useful when considering improvements that could be made for a potential new edition.”

The “second instance” is the only pre-publication step that even might involve a careful review of most or all chapters of a book. And Wiley clearly states it is not necessary for most books. That corresponds perfectly to my very limited experience with preparing chapters for academic books: we simply didn’t worry much about the peer review process for most of the content, once the book proposal had been accepted. Whereas, for journal articles, we expected that every word could be scrutinized.

But I was indeed ignorant that this “second instance” even existed, and I apologize for the error.