Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Peer review

Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
December 7, 2020
Categorized
'Junk DNA', Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, ,

Letter from Michael Behe that a chemistry journal wouldn’t publish in 2004

Denyse O'Leary
December 7, 2020
'Junk DNA', Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Behe: The authors imply that since no reason is known why, say, DNA should be synthesized discontinuously on the lagging strand, then no good reason in fact exists. Yet not long ago the same sort of fallacious argument from ignorance was made concerning “junk DNA.” Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
November 29, 2020
Categorized
Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, , , ,

Cancel Culture tries to get a Nature Communications paper retracted

Denyse O'Leary
November 29, 2020
Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design, Peer review
We are informed that all science Twitter is in a ghastly rage over an open access paper in Nature Communications which seems to show that female scientists benefit more from male mentors than from female mentors. To a layperson with some life experience, that wouldn’t be a surprising outcome at all. In a system that has been male-dominated since forever, more guys would be higher up on the pole. And if you want to get ahead, it pays to know Top People… But, of course, the Outrage Mob is sharpening the guillotine. Their final enemy is, after all, reality in any of its forms. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
November 28, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, ,

A laugh from the world of predatory journals

Denyse O'Leary
November 28, 2020
Intelligent Design, Peer review
Our intrepid narrator had reason to wonder when the badly written letter soliciting papers had an odd attachment: “The editor who sent it to me had, inexplicably, attached a handbook on Covid-19 hospital protocols, a document that detailed at length the precise mechanism of sealing the dead in a “leak-proof corpse wrapping sheet.” Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
November 23, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Philosophy, Science
Tagged
, , ,

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

Denyse O'Leary
November 23, 2020
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Philosophy, Science
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. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
November 5, 2020
Categorized
Culture, Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science
Tagged
, , , ,

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

Denyse O'Leary
November 5, 2020
Culture, Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science
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. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
November 4, 2020
Categorized
Culture, Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science
Tagged
, , ,

Advice to experts on humility

Denyse O'Leary
November 4, 2020
Culture, Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science
Ballantyne is known for the concept of “epistemic trespassing,” where a scholar, convinced that his thesis explains the universe, invades other disciplines like the mad bull charging into the literary tearoom. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 20, 2020
Categorized
Culture, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Peer review
Tagged
, ,

One of those rare instances where science is self-correcting … Ioannidis is vindicated

Denyse O'Leary
October 20, 2020
Culture, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Peer review
Hey, that's good news. But what about all the people whose lives were turned upside down by the herd of stampeding buffalo otherwise known as our moral and intellectual superiors? Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 20, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Philosophy, Science
Tagged
, , , ,

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

Denyse O'Leary
October 20, 2020
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Philosophy, 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. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 19, 2020
Categorized
Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, , ,

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

Denyse O'Leary
October 19, 2020
Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design, Peer review
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. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 12, 2020
Categorized
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, , , ,

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

Denyse O'Leary
October 12, 2020
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Peer review
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. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 11, 2020
Categorized
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, , ,

Here’s the Twitter discussion of that ID-friendly paper at the Journal of Theoretical Biology

Denyse O'Leary
October 11, 2020
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Peer review
The Darwinist commenters below the tweet would put one in mind of coyotes except that coyotes must, perforce, have pack standards. They can’t just howl ANYTHING they please... Well, we shall see what happens next. Read More ›