urodacus wrote:the apple daily has academic credentials?
<- You. The point. ->
R. Daneel Olivaw wrote:Hmm, I'm not sure about that. I don't think everything worth reading is going to be peer-reviewed. There can be opinions expressed that are interesting, but not of scientific quality.
Not everything worth reading is going to be peer reviewed, but if you're wanting to know if a work on a certain standard scholarly subject is worth reading or not, chances are that it will have been subject to peer review if it's worth reading.
Buttercup wrote:Dunno, I just whizz through the bookshop and choose the ones with pretty colours. I don't read academic journals about religious stuffs, only about my own field, generally.
That's fine, do that by all means. But when you recommend your favourite pop religion book to others as a reliable factual source (as you did), then you'll have to be prepared for other people to critique the recommendation, explain the source's deficiencies, and recommend actual reliable sources.
I consider myself able to read a pop religion book without assistance, praise be.
Most people are. That's precisely what pop religion books are all about.
Life would be pretty boring, not to mention time-consuming, if I waited for an expert to tell me what to read, every time I felt the urge to look at a book.
No one has suggested any such thing.
Screaming Jesus wrote:In certain controversial fields, it is unclear which set of would-be peer reviewers ought to be relied upon for their judgment.
There are many different sources of peer review in any standard professionally organized academic field of study. Standard works and articles are usually reviewed by a number of different peers in a number of different peer sources. It's a major strength of the peer review process.
What typically happens is that over time certain peer review sources develop a reputation for reliability. Taking Biblical studies as an example, there's Bibliotheca Sacra, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, and the Journal of Biblical Literature, all of which have a high reputation for reliability based on their academic rigor and long service life.
If people are unclear as to which peer reviewers in a given field ought to be relied upon for their judgment, it's very likely that they are insufficiently educated on the subject to read the kind of work which would be peer reviewed. They will find alternative literature
at their own level, but it may or may not be accurate.
Christian theology is cousin to astrology, psi research, and Scientology--the consensus of "the field" may be suspect.
I believe the consensus of the field with regard to astrology, psi research and Scientology is very far from suspect. As for the consensus on Christian theology, there isn't one. There is a consensus on a large range of issues related to Christian theology, but that's about as far as it gets. In any case, a consensus view is always testable and under the peer review process is always going to be tested.