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

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.

So a potential business deal or potential investment opportunity is one that's never realized? Lol.

Good to know your weaknesses in science and philosophy extend to the English language though.

So a potential business deal or potential investment opportunity is one that's never realized? Lol.

Good to know your weaknesses in science and philosophy extend to the English language though.  

The problem with your analogy is business deals do happen and happen regularly and are well documented according to the law and the tangible monetarily fruitful results. Unfortunately for psi apologists tangible results are severely lacking as you've so astutely noted or not.  
Laugh all day long, but you'd rather hide here a whine about skeptics then to actually engage them to see how and why the rank and file type see things. I think you have no "testosterone" Sci, but perhaps you'll prove me wrong. You know this term  "promissory materialism" often thrown around. You've done the same by using that word "potential" which is synonymous with promissory immaterialism.

The problem with your analogy is business deals do happen and happen regularly and are well documented according to the law and the tangible monetarily fruitful results. Unfortunately for psi apologists tangible results are severely lacking as you've so astutely noted or not.  
Laugh all day long, but you'd rather hide here a whine about skeptics then to actually engage them to see how and why the rank and file type see things. I think you have no "testosterone" Sci, but perhaps you'll prove me wrong. You know this term  "promissory materialism" often thrown around. You've done the same by using that word "potential" which is synonymous with promissory immaterialism.

Heh, from Trump analogies to accusations of lacking testosterone...the classic ad hominem strategies of the internet tough guys inspired by Dawkins. I can just see the "skeptic" playbook sitting at your desk -- Can't you just admit you tried to jump the gun to insult me regarding the use of the word "potential" and made a fool of yourself as usual? 

As for the difference between potentially leading to something and promissory materialism, the former is an acceptance that something like fine-tuning or Orch-OR isn't hard proof while the issue w/ promissory materialism is how it's used to negate something like NDE evidence on the grounds it conflicts w/ a materialism that hasn't been proven.

[Ninshub]

Heh, from Trump analogies to accusations of lacking testosterone...the classic ad hominem strategies of the internet tough guys inspired by Dawkins.

Yeah that atheism/unbelief = less manly shtick as is as old as the Victorian era.

But, damn, maybe Steve is right after all...

Men with high testosterone are less religious – and more antisocial, study suggests
http://healthmedicinet.com/i2/men-with-h...religious/

As for the difference between potentially leading to something and promissory materialism, the former is an acceptance that something like fine-tuning or Orch-OR isn't hard proof while the issue w/ promissory materialism is how it's used to negate something like NDE evidence on the grounds it conflicts w/ a materialism that hasn't been proven.

If he can't grasp the meaning of potential I doubt that he will come close to understanding your accurate distinction here.

Imposters hijack journal’s peer review process to publish substandard papers

Jamie Durrani

Once the themed issue was commissioned, the scammers were invited to handle papers and assign referees for them. This enabled them to accept 19 papers that would otherwise have been rejected by the journal for failing to meet its scope and standards for publication.

‘At the beginning it was very quiet, and then we saw a lot of accepted papers popping up. And when we tried immediately to look at quality of these papers, it turned out it was bad,’ says Pinna. ‘At the same time we got contact from the research integrity group from Springer, telling us that there is a problem with this special issue because of suspicious activity and suspicious emails from used referees and so on. So then we started to investigate.’

However, when the journal’s editorial team began investigating the scam, it found that the fake email accounts had expired. ‘There was no way we could even try to contact them back via these domain names – they don’t exist anymore,’ says Pinna. The journal says that it has put in place new measures to avoid falling victim to such scams in future, and hopes that sharing its experience may help other publishers to spot similar attacks.