by Scott Creighton
***UPDATE*** Apparently Prof Jones thinks so highly of the importance of the comment that he left on a thread at 911 Blogger, he has now posted it to the main page so that everyone is sure to see his valuable instructions on how to think and what to say about… his work.
I just found this little gem in forum over at WTCDemolition. Apparently Prof Jones is telling “truthers” at 911 Blogger how they should think, what they should consider as “valid”, and what the ultimate criteria for consideration of evidence should be. “Peer Review” acceptance is apparently the end-all/be-all “truth meter” now. And anything else isn’t “peer reviewed” isn’t “serious” according to Prof Jones.
Isn’t that the same thing the debunkers used to try and discredit us with years ago?
He goes on to say that his paper has the “imprimatur of peer-review” and that NOW we are no longer in the realm of “Big Foot and Elvis sightings”. Well, that is according to Prof Jones, his “active thermitic material” theory… is not in that realm, that is to say. What does that bode for the rest of the 9/11 Truth Movement?
Is that where everyone else’s hard work in the 911 movement dwells Prof Jones? With “Big Foot” and Elvis?
Forget the fact that for years Jones worked and accepted our accolades and respect without having been “peer reviewed” based solely on what we could see were the valid points he and others made about the problems with the “official story” of 911.
“Here’s what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, “is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?” If not, you can and should say — “I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. ” Jones (see full comment left here at 911 Blogger, at the end of this article)
So now Prof Jones is actively telling 911 Truth advocates what they should consider as “serious” and worthy of consideration is ONLY what is “peer reviewed” and published?
Should Prof Jones’ rabble of minions care to do so, they might suggest to Prof Jones that he remember it wasn’t until April of 2008 that he himself was published in a “peer reviewed” journal. For many years up until that time, his work was widely accepted as solid, scientific, and certainly “serious” by all of us “truthers”.
Up until that point, Prof Jones didn’t seem to have a problem with us giving consideration to unpublished, non-peer reviewed work.
Also consider this, just for the fun of it. By making that comment, Prof Jones has just given more ammunition to the debunkers. Now, anything that isn’t peer reviewed and published, isn’t worthy of your consideration. All the other research all the other work is mute in comparison to the “Jones Theory”.
So much for thinking for ourselves and considering the validity of the arguments based on reasoning and logic. Now, Prof Jones has graciously told us how to think, what is “serious” and what isn’t, and what we should “say” while discussing these things.
Jones full comment from 911 Blogger:
“Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading and commentary by “peers”, that is, other PhD’s and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I’ve ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.
A peer-reviewed journal is also called a “refereed” journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this — that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention — and that is the case with this paper.
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as “Oh, it’s just paint” or “the aluminum is bound up in kaolin.” We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.
Here’s what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, “is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?” If not, you can and should say — “I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. ”
BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the “Fourteen Points” paper or the “Environmental Anomalies” papers we published last year.
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are “vanity publications” (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) — then why don’t the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).
We say that this paper has the “imprimatur of peer-review”. That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings… We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO…”