Except that you have always play the semantic games.
The things are, you have always use your own semantics, the ones you have made up, believing your warped words & definitions to be correct, when no one use used the words, except you.
That’s the level of intellectual dishonesty that I have seen from you, time and time again.
Take this term “homo omniscencis”, for instance. No one use this term, except you, because this
homo omnisciencis don’t exist, but you’ll use it whenever & wherever you get the chance, here and elsewhere. The
homo omnisciencis is only used by you, but the fictitious vocabulary that no one else would use.
The
homo omnisciencis is certainly not biological classification of any taxonomic model.
It is silly word salad that you have invented to describe a history or historical event that never happened except in your imaginary fantasy.
And it isn’t the only thing, that you invented that is also fictitious.
For instance. You have these misinformed & misused reasonings about Peer Review, as to what they do or don’t do, that are untrue, as you have invented conspiracy theory about their powers, authorities that they don’t have, like this:
…and this…
You have invented fantasised scenarios about the peers that don’t exist, and they do what you are claiming they do, but that has never happened.
You seemed to get these kicks, out of making false claims, some conspiracy nonsensical narratives that you have made up about them…the questions are why?
Why would you make up something that has never happened?
Why are you motivated to make up these conspiracy theories about these peers?
Is it because at the one time you try to publish something, but they rejected your work, your model?
Is this revenge for the rejection and not having your model published, so instead of resolving your grievance with the one peer, you have decided to blame ALL peers with generalisation & innuendo as if all peers are the same as the one who rejected your work?
When people (authors of hypotheses) try to submit their works for publication, the publishers will try to have someone independent to review the submitted works, who would either belong in the same field as the respective authors, or someone related to those fields.
Say hypothetically, your hypothesis is in the field of genetics, then the person or persons who would review your work, would be either geneticist or molecular biologist or any biologist who have experiences in that field. They would try to match the peer’s experience with your own expertise. The point, is they wouldn’t sent anyone to review your hypothesis, who don’t belong in the same or related field as you do, like a quantum physicist or geologist or astrophysicist, etc.
So once the publisher has right person or people to review your work, they would analyse your explanatory models & predictive models and they should analyse any data acquired from evidence or experiments that you have submitted along with your hypothesis.
Their duties are to look for errors, to check if the data match with your respective models or not. And if necessarily, they might follow your hypothesis’ instructions to reproduce the experiment or experiments that you should have done. Should the test results don’t match your own data or don’t match the specifications of your predictive modelling, or your instructions on how to carry out the experiment has error(s), then it could be one of the reasons to reject your hypothesis.
But if you didn’t submit any data at all, then that would be automatic rejection of your hypothesis. Hypothesis required data acquired from any test, whether they be experiments or evidence.
Publishers of scientific journals use peer review, to help determine which hypothesis is scientific or not scientific. Sometimes a hypothesis can be scientifically sound, and yet require more works to be done, more data, and therefore more evidence.
Take for instance Abiogenesis, is one of those hypotheses that have been experimentally tested and verified some parts or some models, but it is still a hypothesis, as it still required more more research and more evidence.
The reasons why no scientists have submitted Intelligent Design for Peer Review, eg Specific Complexity by William Dembski or Irreducible Complexity by MichaelR Behe, is because they have no predictive models, no instructions on how to test their respective models, and no data that can verify their respective models. These are the reasons why they submitted their works for publication from publishers that have no peer review.
Every publishers have their editors and “book reviewers”, but book reviewers are not the same as peer reviewers, as book reviewers don’t need scientific backgrounds (eg qualifications and experiences in field(s) in any science), and don’t need scientific knowledge, and more importantly, book reviewers don’t analyse any model or test results (eg data).
A book review is a critical analysis of literary contents, and they would either like or not like the pre-published manuscripts. These type of reviews are not there to analyse scientific mechanics of any scientific model.
Peer Review are there to like or dislike a hypothesis. The peer reviewers are only there ensure there are no errors in the hypothesis, and to make sure the data are available for analysis, and that the data are not biased, or worse, fraudulent (eg doctoring measurements or quantities).
Your claim about Peer Review, is simply a work of fiction, possibly because of your resentment towards one of them who had rejected your work.
