Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to If you don't express yourself and link to evidence ...

re: If you don't express yourself
TB — (archived)

I seem to have lost you on that last curve.

I'm not comparing Oreskes to Monkton, I'm comparing her to Peiser.

For some reason (wrong word, but let's go with it) you are unable to recognize that a 'review of abstracts' doesn't qualify as evidence of the phenomena under analysis, nor does it qualify as peer review scholarly work in the relevant fields.

Nobody said it did, but Oreskes' essay falls exactly into this category too. Neither she nor anyone else who has analyzed lists of abstracts to answer these questions has tried to present it as "peer reviewed scholarly work," and given the type of analysis, it doesn't need to be.

You are keeping up to the extent of knowing that abstract analysis is what we've been talking about, right?

Under the circumstances, I kind of like the irony of you using Wikepedia as a primary source.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (48 posts)