Yes, and he has also falsely
lobbied for IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science to be blacklisted as a journal, on account of the one or two articles he personally found distasteful or disagreed with.
Not to mention taking a personal potshot at me for no reason and with no supporting evidence.
Hmm,
this article about Velikovskian pseudoscience was written this year. Done and done. Not to mention that Mgmirkin is just about the worst person we could find to discuss these matters ever. Axe to grind? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Who has what axe to grind SA?
He proved exactly the point I was making. He took issue with one single article from
his POV, and somehow believed that that
invalidates the
entire journal, because he says so. An utterly
rubbish argument, as I'd stated at the start of my disproof of his assertion. I might also add that there is nothing "Velikovskian" nor "pseudoscientific" in the article he cited either (about detailing a scientific lab setup in which hematite spherules were created via a direct arc discharge). He appears to have inserted his own
opinion once again and
asserted it as [an unsupported] "fact." I have in fact seen CJ Ransom's experimental setup (mid last year) and saw spherule formation via arc. IT was rather impressive. Especially insofar as it can be replicated with relatively inexpensive hobby-level equipment (as opposed to millions of dollars worth of government funding searching for
non-existent black holes, etc.).
In fact many other types of spherules have been created via arc discharges in the lab (and nature), including clear glassy spherules with small bubble inclusions, and possibly others. One can pretty readily find evidence of spherules created naturally as a byproduct giant electric arcs. Y'know, the ones called LIGHTNING?
(Not just Rocks - Gallery)
http://www.notjustrocks.com/wst_page4.html
(Not Just Rocks - Ground Zero)
http://www.notjustrocks.com/wst_page6.html
(Glassy spherules created in association with a lightning strike; Huntsville, AL)
http://www.notjustrocks.com/uploads/ALsoilfulg-10L.jpg
Granted, Fulgurites (as opposed to spherules) are a more commonly known direct product of lightning...
But the point of the matter, is he was on a personal crusade to invalidate IEEE TPS by whatever means necessary, but had no valid argument for doing so. He literally had only one (At most 2-3? Being generous, since no further examples were offered.) article to offer. Far short of his claim that they "
routinely publish Velikovskian nonsense." In fact there is no preponderance of articles from "Velikovskians" or "way-out-there fringers" necessary to support his claim they they are "regularly published." One article does not "
regularly" make. I hate to get into semantics, but really... Extraordinary claims of Velikovskian intent require more than personal distaste for one or two articles out of the entire run of a journal. If someone's personal opinion of one or two purportedly "bad" articles in an entire journal's lifetime was ScienceApologist's "gold standard" for condemning a "rubbish journal," then just about NO journal currently available on astronomy could meet ScieneApologist's standard of inclusion on Wikipedia.
ScienceApologist wrote:Abecedare wrote:I don't know about the rest, but IEEE Trans. Plasma Science is certainly no fringe-theory outlet and has a decent reputation within the field [
76]. Impact factors should be judged within the relevant field, and I can't think of a single journal published by reputable professional societies such as IEEE, APS, AMS, SIAM that would qualify as a fringe journal, even though traditionally the covered topics have relatively low impact factors especially compared with journals in medicine and biosciences. While I wouldn't vouch for the accuracy of every paper in any journal, we should be careful that we don't paint with too broad a brush. Abecedare (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No, IEEE Trans. Plasma Science is definitely the most fringe of them all in terms of cosmology and astronomy. Aside from being listed only in the noise at the site you give for plasma physics and fusion,
they routinely publish papers by Velikovskians and other way-out-there fringers who believe in all sorts of nonsense with regards to astronomy. I think it's because the editor in chief has trusted all the cosmology publications to be reviewed by Perrat and Eastman. I've sent them a request for information but they have replied that they believe in [77], and that's what I should refer my questions to. So they're conspiracy theorists in charge of IEEE's journal. However, the rest of the community ignores it. If you look at actual papers dealing with astronomy published by that paper, their citation rate is close to nil. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
After I utterly refuted his claim that Velikovskian fantasies are regularly published (with concrete examples of ACTUAL articles
regularly submitted to the journal), he simply repeated his assertion that "they routinely publish papers by Velikovskians and other way-out-there fringers," with no further support.
ScienceApologist wrote:MGmirkin wrote:No, that's utter POV rubbish, sorry to say.
[snip; to see the original longer version, go
here]
No, IEEE Trans. Plasma Science is definitely the most fringe of them all in terms of cosmology and astronomy. Aside from being listed only in the noise at the site you give for plasma physics and fusion,
they routinely publish papers by Velikovskians and other way-out-there fringers who believe in all sorts of nonsense with regards to astronomy. ... ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact, all he did was copy the first couple lines of his prior statement. He didn't even say anything new or attempt to offer new/additional evidence. His argument was basically worthless, as usual. All bark, no bite.
As Dusty Devil noted on another
thread: ScienceApologist himself then closed the noticeboard request and issued
HIS OWN finding on the matter supporting
his own opinion.
ScienceApologist wrote:Itsmejudith wrote:Thanks for the clarification. I think the conclusion on this noticeboard must be that both are peer-reviewed academic journals and therefore RS. You will need to discuss on the talk page of the relevant article(s) whether they are being used appropriately and whether due weight is being given. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the conclusion of this noticeboard is that just because a paper is in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean that it is necessarily a reliable source. Thanks for playing. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No... The conclusion of SA, lobbied for by SA, and disagreed upon by the other posters to the noticeboard does not
in and of itself constitute "
consensus!"
Isn't that a major Conflict Of Interest? Coming to the noticeboard, lobbying for action against IEEE TPS, not getting consensus of other editors, being told that the final decision should be that the source is peer-reviewed, notable, and is allowable for discussion on the relevant talk page(s), then issuing
his own decision that
his view was the consensus and closing the issue to further discussion... Shouldn't some non-interested party come in to make a ruling on consensus or lack thereof, rather than an interested party with an agenda making the ruling? Note also his condescending and mocking tone at the end, as though nobody else's opinion but his matters.
Oy... Wikipedia is such a farce sometimes. I hate to say it. It just seems to be losing credibility, in general. Too much in-fighting and POV-pushing over controversial issues. SA apparently feels justified because he POV-pushes the mainstream view. It is still, however, a POV (albeit an entrenched one that Wikipedia seems intent on maintaining, often at the detriment of other reasonably-well-sourced points of view).
[/end literary criticism]
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin