Youtube Debate / peer review

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Thames Darwin
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:55 pm

Re: Youtube Debate / peer review

Postby Thames Darwin » 5 years 2 months ago (Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:24 pm)

Hannover wrote:borjastick:
Look at what happened to Nick Kollerstrom, who was a very senior professor in UCL London when he submitted a paper on the holocaust. His game was up, he was ostracised and booted out. He was not the first nor will he be the last.
Look at Germar Rudolf, who lost his PhD from the Max Planck Institute. Look at what happened to Dr. Joel Hayward. Look at what happened to Professor Steven Salaita at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.


Look at what happened to: Austin App, James J. Martin, Harry Elmer Barnes, Arthur Butz, Charles Weber, Kaukab Siddique, etc. In the United States, at least, you can say what you want as long as you have tenure. To gain tenure, you must submit your work to peer review.

Creox:
I don't see why or that having Jews in many universities is the central problem.
Please, no strawmen. It's a problem when Jews dominate influential academic positions when qualified non-Jews are readily available (aka: hiring discrimination) and when these Jews demand adherence to a racist Zionist / Marxist agenda.


I agree that there is a problem here. But you seem to suggest that hiring should adhere to quotas and that Jewish faculty is fine as long as they aren't Zionists or left-wing. Does that mean we should be OK with Murray Rothbard, because I'm not sure we should.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Youtube Debate / peer review

Postby Hannover » 5 years 2 months ago (Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:01 pm)

Thames Darwin:
I agree that there is a problem here. But you seem to suggest that hiring should adhere to quotas and that Jewish faculty is fine as long as they aren't Zionists or left-wing. Does that mean we should be OK with Murray Rothbard, because I'm not sure we should.
Today must be strawman day for EtienneSC & Thames Darwin.
No, that's clearly not what I said.
I believe there should be no preferential treatment in hiring. Jewish faculty are fine as long as they don't get hired preferentially.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
The Internet is demolishing the false narrative promoted by arrogant Jewish supremacists. From the slaughter of the Palestinians to the lies of Auschwitz the world is recognizing the dangers of Jewish supremacism.
The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Youtube Debate / peer review

Postby Dresden » 5 years 2 months ago (Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:16 pm)

EttienneSC said:

Rubbish. Peer review is a legitimate procedure in academia or elsewhere. It is common sense that a fresh pair of eyes can see faults in a piece of reasoning. Some revisionists peer review each other's work. As for academia, it is high time that revisionists began submitting work to academic journals where it is of a sufficient quality - if only to publicize their work.

Your comment is so uninformed that I initially thought it was satire.

Here's an example of what happens when Revisionists submit their work for peer review:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://codoh.com/library/document/1739

The Rudolf Report: "Psychopathological and Dangerous"

On the Psychopathology of a Declaration

By Pierre Guillaume

Published: 2004-12-01

La Recherche, No. 300, July/August 1997:

The Rudolf Report

The members of the Chemistry Department of the [French] Academy of Sciences received a few weeks ago a document entitled ‘The Rudolf Report,’ accompanied by an anonymous letter which explained the ongoing witch hunt against revisionist historians.

Several days later, Le Monde informed us that the distribution and sale of this document is forbidden in France.

‘The Rudolf Report’ combines scientific facts, which have no connection whatsoever to the subject, with a sick, feverish delusion that the gas chambers of Auschwitz could have only been used for killing lice on the clothes of deportees from Central Europe.

We would not have paid much attention to this letter, had it not mentioned that the document had been sent to all professors of inorganic chemistry in German universities and had not received a single objection from any of them. Our silence could be interpreted as an approval. It is therefore important for us to state that this report is noteworthy only as an example of perversion of science: it is interesting to those in the field of psychopathology, but it is dangerous because of its professional appearance.

The Members of the Chemistry Department of the [French] Academy of Sciences


The above declaration is astonishing. It is the collective opinion of the members, all the members, of the Chemistry Department of the French Academy of Sciences, who agreed to align themselves in this common declaration. The matter must be a serious one to inspire such solidarity. The opinion presented highlights the obvious in order to bring these items to our attention.

These obvious matters are opposed by others, and this is the reason why this outlandish declaration is granted validity through its publication in a scientific magazine.

There we have it. The authority of a scholarly magazine is used when publishing this unanimous declaration. One wonders, what could be so important that it justifies this collective initiative of academics and is handled in such a rush. What sort of document could precipitate such solidarity?

Is it spontaneous unanimity, or rather a silent agreement made under the pressure of some excited zealots who are willing to denounce anyone showing a lack of loyalty? The answer to this question could be important. The incident is there. The Chemistry Department of the French Academy of Sciences and each of its members deployed their authority, but science does not acknowledge a dispute of authority. Science is not allowed to acknowledge it! In fact, the opinion of the Chemistry Department of the French Academy of Sciences doesn’t have the least bit to do with chemistry, nor science. It says in the declaration:

“It is therefore important for us to state that this work is noteworthy only as an example of perversion of science: it is interesting to those in the field of psychopathology, [...]”

The members of the Chemistry Department placed their collective authority into this declaration by requesting the reader to believe their words without proof. This is exactly the opposite of a scientific refutation: it replaces proof through argument with pure authority. No matter how great or how justified the authority of a scientist may be, he loses it in that instant when he falls back on his reputation instead of arguing to support his assessment.

But is this declaration a valid assessment at all, or is it more the extension of an official prohibition of a religious nature? The Rudolf Report is, after all, an allegedly noteworthy example of perversion of science. Well then! The perversion of science is a serious threat, and justifies the interference of the French Academy of Sciences. The exposure and scientific dismantling of such a notable example of perversion would honor the French Academy, its authority, and strengthen its influence throughout the world. But instead of indicating to the stunned public (and especially the scientific community) the errors, impossibilities, and allegedly perverse methods discovered in the Rudolf Report, the academics limit themselves to declaring ...

This Report, which is “only interesting to those in the field of the psychopathology,” is “quite dangerous because of its professional appearance.” How bizarre!

A report, which was submitted to support a thesis and which displays solid psychopathology, would probably lead that thesis to its final ruin. Then how can the Rudolf Report be dangerous?

Because it lends a professional appearance to the thesis which it defends.

Does this Report therefore have a professional appearance?

How strange! We are being made to believe:

“This work combines scientific facts, which have no connection with the subject whatsoever, with a sick feverish delusion, which pretends [...]”

If this were the case, the Rudolf Report could not deceive anyone in the scientific world who would recognize its psychopathology right away, and its distribution within the field of the scientific public could only help convince them of the senselessness of revisionist arguments.

This collective action of the French Academy (which sounds like a warning) seems to be exaggerated. If the data published in the Rudolf Report has no relation to the subject, and the subject is handled exactly as described by the members of the Chemistry Department, then it is not clear how it can yield a professional appearance. But, if the Rudolf Report is unprofessional and still appears to be professional, then any reasonable action that could eliminate this appearance would be desired.

If the facts do not support the thesis, then the only reasonable and effective way would be to prove this. A simple prohibiting declaration appealing to authority is the worst of all possible quick responses. It is important to take steps to expose the deception by clearly indicating the errors, which show the document’s appearance to be deceiving. If this is not done, silence “can certainly [...] be interpreted,” because this declaration by the academics says a lot – or, perhaps, not enough.

We also learn that this Rudolf Report was sent to all German professors of inorganic chemistry “without ‘a single objection’ from them.” This may have been the actual reason for the collective declaration by the academics; they don’t want people to say that the Rudolf Report was sent to all the members of their community “without ‘a single objection’ from them.”

The terrible revisionists are correct in maintaining that the Rudolf Report met complete rejection and an insulted reaction from the nobility, but they were not provided with a single justified objection.

The reason for this is evident, and is possibly the message the authors intended to give: The Rudolf Report is not even worth being subject to the slightest justified criticism.

Why is it then “of course quite dangerous?”

If it is dangerous, it first of all requires a thorough criticism, which should be very easy to do, since the Rudolf Report is supposed to contain such great errors. A criticism would also be necessary since its errors are allegedly only recognizable under great scrutiny.

Is the refutation of the Rudolf Report difficult or easy?

It depends.

The story offered here makes no sense at all and only offers a new impossibility. Who are these terrible revisionists, who, under the greatest expense and greatest drudgery, sent to the most competent personalities of France such a poorly composed report, full of scientific facts unrelated to the subject, in order to reveal their trickery? This is, evidently, a complex strategy, which can be shattered immediately by breaking the silence – it is that simple.

The members of the Chemistry Department of the French Academy of Sciences proved incapable of refuting the Rudolf Report: An Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz, or else they carelessly contributed their signatures without understanding the object of its research. They expose themselves to such a suspicion.

Fortunately, we were informed by Le Monde that the distribution and sale of this Rudolf Report is forbidden in France.

Therefore there are no more problems! Sleep ... sleep, you little ones ... sleep! Keep on walking, there is nothing to see
!


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Another good article for you to read is "The Irrational Vocabulary of the American Professorial Class with Regard to the Holocaust Question" by Bradley R. Smith
http://codoh.com/library/document/547
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Youtube Debate / peer review

Postby Hannover » 5 years 2 months ago (Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:32 pm)

More on 'academia's' bogus peer review process.
"One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any historical research regarding this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is no debate regarding the existence of the gas chambers, and there can never be one."
The above was endorsed by 34 "reputable historians" and published in the French daily Le Monde on February 21, 1979

'Holocaust' Logic 101

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Re: Youtube Debate / peer review

Postby Mulegino1 » 5 years 2 months ago (Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:13 pm)

Steve F wrote:EttienneSC said:

Rubbish. Peer review is a legitimate procedure in academia or elsewhere. It is common sense that a fresh pair of eyes can see faults in a piece of reasoning. Some revisionists peer review each other's work. As for academia, it is high time that revisionists began submitting work to academic journals where it is of a sufficient quality - if only to publicize their work.

Your comment is so uninformed that I initially thought it was satire.

Here's an example of what happens when Revisionists submit their work for peer review:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://codoh.com/library/document/1739

[b]The Rudolf Report: "Psychopathological and Dangerous"
In its zeal to uphold this now most sacrosanct narrative of the secularized west, the scientific establishment has been forced to retreat to full blown fideism and outrageous circular reasoning in order to defend it!

Even Galileo was given a fairer hearing by the Roman Inquisition than Rudolf (and the other courageous revisionists) by his so called "scientific" contemporaries; at least he was allowed to present his evidence to the Tribunal.

As the physical and documentary evidence which falsifies the myth piles up, I expect the Shoah Business to make a full blown transition from the "most documented event in human history" to that of a meta-historical pseudo-religion. Expect the industry bosses to double down on the emotional, "mystical" aspects of the Shoah and to increasingly evoke the "sacred memory" and "the silence". I would not be surprised one bit if at some point those who merely ask for physical or documentary evidence will be sued or prosecuted for blasphemy against the " Sacred 6 Million".

EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Youtube Debate

Postby EtienneSC » 5 years 2 months ago (Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:46 pm)

borjastick wrote: As for revisionists submitting papers for peer review, just how would that work and to whom would these papers be submitted?
Good question. The answer deserves a separate thread, but there is no shortage of journals concerned with the holocaust, either in isolation or along with more general content. These include:
1. Holocaust and Genocide Studies (Oxford: UP, on behalf of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1987-), which describes itself as "the major forum for scholarship on the Holocaust and other genocides";
2. Holocaust Studies: a journal of culture and history (Valentine Mitchell: 1992-), an "innovative and interdisciplinary journal bringing together the best of current research into the Nazi persecution and mass murder of the Jews and other Nazi genocides", associated with the British Association of Holocaust Studies and supported by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany;
3. Idea: a Journal of Social Issues, "dedicated to serious analysis and study of issues relating to holocaust, genocide, mass murder, mind control and the abuse of power";
4. Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations, which "publishes peer-reviewed scholarship on the history, theology, and contemporary realities of Jewish-Christian relations";
5. War Crimes, Genocide and Crimes against Humanity, a "multidisciplinary, peer reviewed scholarly journal dedicated to understanding the conceptualization, aetiology, and prevention of violations in international and criminal law";
6. Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust (Taylor & Francis), "an inter-disciplinary publication which promotes the study of the Holocaust period and the issue of anti-Semitism through the various disciplines and methodologies, and gives expression to new research agendas in Israel and around the world" which is supported by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany;
7. Journal for the Study of Antisemitism (2009-);
8. Holocaust and Modernity: Studies in Ukraine and the World (Ukrainian Center for Holocaust Studies, 2005-);
9. Genocide Studies and Prevention, an "international, interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal that addresses cutting-edge issues in the field of genocide studies and related areas";
10. Journal of Genocide Research (Taylor & Francis, 1999-), "a cross-disciplinary journal that promotes the scholarly study of genocide", which is connected to the International Network of Genocide Scholars;
11. Dimensions: A Journal of Holocaust Studies, published by the Anti-Defamation League's Braun Holocaust Institute;
12. Holocaust Studies and Materials [Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały], Polish Center for Holocaust Research, 2005-).
Not all of these are academic and some of the sources of funding don't suggest neutrality. Their level seems similar to Inconvenient History. I predict that revisionists would not get far with some of them, but I am not being entirely frivolous in suggesting that some of the more original revisionist scholars could make contact and see what happened. Has this happened recently, or at all?
Steve F wrote:Your comment is so uninformed that I initially thought it was satire.

Here's an example of what happens when Revisionists submit their work for peer review:
[Citing the case of Germar Rudolf.] Yes, but that was a long time ago and the potential value of Rudolf's work has been acknowledged by Ernst Nolte, a senior German academic and historian. Are we to hold grudges and remain in a hole/splendid isolation for ever?
Thames Darwin wrote: Look at what happened to: Austin App, James J. Martin, Harry Elmer Barnes, Arthur Butz, Charles Weber, Kaukab Siddique, etc. In the United States, at least, you can say what you want as long as you have tenure. To gain tenure, you must submit your work to peer review.
Again, a lot of these cases are old news. Harry Elmer Barnes died in 1968.

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Youtube Debate / peer review

Postby Dresden » 5 years 2 months ago (Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:59 pm)

EtienneSC said:

"[Citing the case of Germar Rudolf.] Yes, but that was a long time ago and the potential value of Rudolf's work has been acknowledged by Ernst Nolte, a senior German academic and historian"

There are two things wrong with your reasoning:

1. The case of Germar Rudolf was five years after Nolte's endorsement.

2. the situation now is much, much worse than it was seventeen years ago!

"I predict that revisionists would not get far with some of them....."

Then there was no sense in mentioning them.

I say Revisionists wouldn't get to first base with any of them
I also say that a serious Revisionist paper wouldn't get published in an important Journal of note.....even if they were offered a hundred million dollars.

Any Journal that published a serious Revisionist paper would be labeled "anti-semitic"(that is, if there was such a thing as an important Journal that was not owned or controlled by Jews).
The publisher would be branded a "Nazi" and the Journal boycotted.

You would have just as much luck getting it published on Deborah Lipstadt or Alan Dershowitz' website.
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Youtube Debate / peer review

Postby Hannover » 5 years 2 months ago (Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:30 pm)

Etienne,
Your list of 'holocaust' journals does nothing than show how censored Revisionists are. All those propaganda organs yet none that allow work critical of the 'holocaust' storyline. Talk about preaching to choir, those Jewish supremacist publications are doing exactly that. They prohibit a diversity of opinion.

I notice your ignored the rather lengthy list of those who didn't play along and suffered the consequences,

You curiously imply that things have loosened up without giving any examples.

Can you now cite examples of university class reading lists containing quality Revisionist publications?

I suggest things are worse as the university 'holocaust' Industry is becoming increasingly desperate in spite of their censorship, repression, and their terrorist behavior towards unapproved research.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
The Internet is demolishing the false narrative promoted by arrogant Jewish supremacists. From the slaughter of the Palestinians to the lies of Auschwitz the world is recognizing the dangers of Jewish supremacism.
The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Creox
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:32 pm

Re: Youtube Debate / peer review

Postby Creox » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:22 pm)

Odd

It appears that "applied mathematics" posts have all been removed from that page.

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Youtube Debate / peer review

Postby Dresden » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Jan 02, 2015 3:16 pm)

Creox said::

"It appears that "applied mathematics" posts have all been removed from that page"

Yes, that's strange.....he removed his own comments.
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Youtube Debate / peer review

Postby Hektor » 5 years 2 months ago (Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:52 pm)

Jurgen wrote:The peer review process is in and of itself a little broken as it is biased to a viewset or a world view.

People (Historians/Scientists) of a particular world view will not peer review papers written by folk who hold a different view to their own (ie Creationists vs Evolutionists/Holocaust Deniers vs Believers. And seeing that the orthodox hold the positions of power you can GUARANTEE no unbiased peer review will ever take place on non-orthodox material.

We debated the applicability of "peer review" to Holocaust Revisionism in the past and concluded that's f.....n ridiculous.
The bias has already been mentioned. Does this clown realize that the Holocaust isn't open for debate not academically and in some countries (some that highly matter in this regard) not legally?
TonyB @ The "Revisionists are not peer reviewed" argument

Anyone using the "not peer reviewed" argument shows himself to be a moron.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests