Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Peer review

Would you believe? Science ghostwriting factories in China

Epoch Times: A reporter from Xinhua Viewpoint, a column of official media Xinhua, posing as a cardiovascular and cerebrovascular physician contacted numerous paper factories and was told that all levels of dissertation could be written and published for him as long as the delivery time was not too short, according to Xinhua in a Jan. 11 report. Read More ›

As 24 nonsense papers are retracted, Daily Sceptic asks, What happened to peer review?

That’s what “Trust the Science” does. It enables a superstitious reverence for nonsense at best and corruption at worst. And only occasionally does anyone in charge need to pretend to reform anything. Read More ›

L&FP, 52: Fallaciously “settled” (=begged) questions and the marginalisation of legitimate alternatives

Nowadays, we are often told “The Science is SETTLED,” as though Science is ever finalised or certain. To go with it, those who have concerns or alternative views and arguments are marginalised and too often smeared, scapegoated or even outright slandered. Sometimes — as Dallas Willard warned regarding moral knowledge — in this rush to judgement, legitimate knowledge is derided, denigrated and dismissed, leading to manipulation and indoctrination. Then, of course, wide swathes of the media and many educators will often jump on the bandwagon. As a result, policy and government become increasingly divorced from due prudence, leading to ruinous marches of folly. How can we rebalance the situation? First, as the media are the main conduit of indoctrination and Read More ›

Mixing science with politics is like mixing mustard and ice cream

So far so good, Marcelo Gleiser, until we got to the part about “often giving equal weight to the opinion of the vast majority of scientists and to the opinion of a small contrarian group,” … There’s actually nothing unusual about the “small contrarian group” being right. Read More ›

At Mind Matters News: Jonathan Bartlett: Will the Sokal hoaxes worsen the academic echo chamber?

There’s nothing wrong per se with mainstream thinking — it probably became mainstream for good reasons. However, when only mainstream thinking is allowed, this leads to insularity and an echo chamber mentality. Read More ›

Retraction Watch co-founder on the lab leak theory re COVID

Ivan Oransky: Many in the media, as well as some scientists, quickly labeled it a conspiracy theory, designed to shift focus away from the missteps of their own countries. But, like everyone else involved in the discussions about the lab leak theory, scientists have something at stake: If SARS-CoV-2 did escape from a lab, it could further shake trust in research, and threaten funding… Read More ›

Canadian journal pleads: Make science skepticism great again

At C2C Journal: After several years of meticulously documented research, in 2020 the seven-member team, including Raby and Roche, published a comprehensive refutation of the “Crazy Nemo” thesis in the prestigious science journal Nature. Some of the team went further and requested various international funding bodies investigate Munday and Dixson for academic misconduct since their work contained statistical anomalies generally associated with data fraud. “There are irregularities in the data that need to be investigated,” states Roche firmly. Read More ›

Surprise! Cue Shock! Study finds “bias” in biomedical journals

The rest of the news release goes on to minimize the problem and soften the blow — not the usual approach in media (for good reason). Lost somewhere in the snow: “Some of these authors, the researchers said, are also on the editorial boards of the journals.” Read More ›

Isn’t cheating in science journals just part of survival of the fittest?

David Coppedge: Nature believes that evolutionary arms races emerge from time to time, like bees against wasps, butterflies against birds, or moths against bats. Those symbioses are not right or wrong. They just are. Why are not predatory journals examples of the same phenomenon? Read More ›

Springer Nature retracts 44 “utter nonsense” papers

As we’ve noted earlier, it’s getting to the point where “Trust the science!” is sounding more ridiculous all the time. It’s like saying “Trust the mountains” or “Trust milk.” It's not a rational response to a lot of what we face just now. Read More ›