Louis Midgley > DanielPeterson • 2 days ago • edited
Earlier, Noel H. claimed that had friends in Australia and--"They have great expertise on Bayesian Statistical Analysis. I am," he added, "waiting." Nothing seems to have come from his friends on the West Island packed with "great expertise." Now he tells us that those on "the MD challenged the Dale paper." Wow! Scholarship at its very best.
This post by Midgley sums up a subset of the responses to the OP topic quite well. His ignorance is representative of a mindset that pervades the Interpreter editing, peer review, and article quality.
There has been considerable commentary posted, here and at the interpreter site. Very well supported, academically oriented assessments and strong mathematical and statistical critique have been given. I am very impressed by the quality of the dissenting opinions, but still, any disagreement that appears 'hostile to LDS truth claims' is automatically dismissed. Why? Because it is 'hostile to LDS truth claims.'
And yet the editor protests vociferously that the paper has been peer reviewed by a statistician. I can only assume that term is used rather loosely. I think we can put to bed the question of whether the Interpreter engages in an academically rigorous version of peer review. They do not.