Intelligent Design Peer review Philosophy Science

Gizmodo asks experts to name the biggest science frauds of the past 50 years

Dr. Hesselmann’s probably right but how depressing. In a world where so much research that doesn’t involve fraud fails replication, it’s just a fact that most published research papers in many fields are probably wrong or at least sloppy. So why bother with fraud? But not exactly a good look for science.

Culture Intelligent Design Peer review Science

Karsten Pultz comes to the defense of the Elsevier editors who say they did not know that the Hossjer–Thorvaldsen paper was ID-friendly

The editors need not, of course, sympathize with the ID perspective to think that evidence for it should be permitted to be discussed. At one time, that was a conventional intellectual position. But the Darwinians, as we’ve said here earlier, are an early flowering of Cancel Culture. No evidence may be discussed that may be thought to favor an Incorrect view.

Intelligent Design Peer review Philosophy Science

Some researchers arrive at an important truth about “consensus science”

Researchers: “When individuals are fully independent, even under highly unfavorable circumstances a consensus provides strong evidence for the correctness of the affirmed position. This no longer remains the case once dependence, polarization, and external pressure are introduced. With such interventions, the probability of a false consensus increases dramatically.
” “Shut up, he explained” is not consensus, it’s false consensus.

Intellectual freedom Intelligent Design Peer review

That notorious ID paper was the one most downloaded from the Journal…

Eventually, people, we are going to have to start rewarding the Darwinians for banning and persecuting advocates of design in nature. Look, guys, it’s only fair. Mediocrities steam themselves into near oblivion to destroy the idea and their efforts only fan the flames. Sadly, all we wanted was a serious discussion. We never asked them to be Roman candles.

Darwinism Intelligent Design Peer review

Now the Journal of Theoretical Biology is publishing a rebuttal letter to the design-friendly paper

Which is fine in principle. But be realistic. The Darwin mob, an early flowering of Cancel Culture, will not be satisfied with anything less than retraction and the obliteration of the careers of everyone involved. If that is accomplished by scandalously spurious means, all the better for the mob. That increases its sense of power and self-justification. Saying NO! To them is an act of liberation.

Intelligent Design Medicine Peer review Science

Surgisphere scandal results in change in editorial practices at The Lancet

At The Scientist: “Like Malički, Watson and other researchers note that the changes don’t address larger, more general issues highlighted by Surgisphere’s papers, including journals’ reluctance to push authors to share data and code for published studies, and an overall lack of transparency in how papers are reviewed before and after publication. “