Some science journals that claim to peer review papers do not do so

It was obviously referring to the article posted at the start of the thread, about journals not peer-reviewing papers.

Sci’s point looked more general than that. Maybe I’ve become over sensitive to that type of strawman appeal to the cheap seats. I clearly wasn’t the only one confused by the sentiments.

Is the author of that OP article a “skeptic”?

Sci’s point looked more general than that. Maybe I’ve become over sensitive to that type of strawman appeal to the cheap seats. I clearly wasn’t the only one confused by the sentiments.

Is the author of that OP article a “skeptic”?

Would you like to clarify who's in the cheap seats, malf?

Would you like to clarify who's in the cheap seats, malf?

Not really  

My response to the point (which I nearly posted, and then didn't bother to) was that psi sceptics (like psi proponents) are such a tiny band in comparison with the armies of professional scientists that it's a bit unfair to expect them to keep science sound.

We could ask whether psi sceptics devote sufficient attention to the shortcomings of mainstream science compared with psi. But as I'm a liberal, that line of attack doesn't appeal to me. I think people should be free to choose which windmills to spend their time tilting at, so long as their choices don't become so perverse that they amount to hypocrisy.

What is the stated mission of  "skeptics"?

To safeguard us from bad science or to evangelize those metaphysical faiths that preclude Psi, God, souls...

And if it's the former rather than the latter, how have they not completely missed the forest of bad science while trying to cut down a particular tree whose potential fruit is God, souls, Psi, etc...?

What is the stated mission of  "skeptics"?

Do you have anyone specific in mind?

Sci’s point looked more general than that. Maybe I’ve become over sensitive to that type of strawman appeal to the cheap seats. I clearly wasn’t the only one confused by the sentiments.

Is the author of that OP article a “skeptic”?

Sci's strategy has similarities  to Trumps strategy in regards to the Mueller investigation in whether Trump colluded with the Russians. Create doubt, so that when the final report is released his base won't believe it.

Sci's mission it seems is to create doubt about science. What Sci doesn't admit to is science works rather well despite  the sometimes misdeeds of researchers.  I wonder why psi believers don't police psi researchers?

Do you have anyone specific in mind?

Yes he does, all of them.

What is the stated mission of  "skeptics"?

To safeguard us from bad science or to evangelize those metaphysical faiths that preclude Psi, God, souls...

And if it's the former rather than the latter, how have they not completely missed the forest of bad science while trying to cut down a particular tree whose potential fruit is God, souls, Psi, etc...?

There are plenty here to get a consensus. Go there and ask. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...mindex.php
*Potential fruit, fruit that's never realized, that's the rub.

* That's either a poor choice of phrasing or a Freudian slip.

On a related issue - I wasn't aware of this before:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/poli...-in-europe

The good news is that the European Commission has a target of open access for all scientific publications by 2020.

The bad news is that the European Commission has appointed Elsevier, a company that derives income from charges to access scientific publications, to monitor progress towards this target.

This seems not entirely wise, to put it mildly.