Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 11:35 PM
394 online now:
Boof, Coyote, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx, Vlad (8 members, 386 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,873 Year: 16,479/21,208 Month: 2,368/3,593 Week: 481/882 Day: 102/97 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   When Peer Review Fails: Bad Science Papers of the Week
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4566
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 16 of 27 (779469)
03-04-2016 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
03-04-2016 2:15 PM


The author appeared to be claiming that by "Creator" he only meant the design or invention of nature resulting from evolution, but if that were true he wouldn't have used the word "mystery."

Hmmm. I'm not saying you're wrong but then I have heard evolutionary scientists use superlatives pertaining to the mysteries of science, when they didn't really mean anything that alludes to a supernatural God.

I would say your reductio-ad-absurdum was valid but the rule is with a conditional implication, that the consequent must CERTAINLY follow.

Example:

"If you are a human therefore you are a female."

The problem is, if you have a human you may well have a female, but technically speaking it is a false implication because it doesn't follow 100% of the time. (non-sequitur)

Now if he used in the article, a word that certainly IMPLIES some kind of religious statement, then you would have a stronger case that he was saying something none-evolution.

The point to be careful of though, is that even if he did MEAN an intelligent designer, (creator) this doesn't mean that he said something pseudo-scientific, because he could be an agnostic.

I know agnostics, (though I admit they are a minority), that accept that there is an intelligent designer of organisms but this doesn't mean that they believe that the intelligent designer is a supernatural designer. Therefore when people say that it would be a "pseudo-scientific" statement, they are using that phrase as a question-begging-epithet, because they are not clever enough to delineate the difference between arguing a supernatural designer, and merely arguing an intelligent designer, whomever or whatever that designer might be. So their argument might not include a specific designer, but only the conclusion that it was intelligently designed by an intelligence.

Strictly speaking, I myself would not make a religious syllogism for my intelligent design argument. Usually I use the law-of-identity, and the final conclusion of my argument, which does not involve God, is that, "therefore there is an intelligent designer".

When I speak outspokenly about God being that designer, obviously I would admit that I do that by faith, I do that through personal conviction.

So it could be a religious-arguer. But if he doesn't mention who the creator is, then technically speaking the only problem evolutionists have with this paper is their prejudice against something that would only POSSIBLY SUPPORT theism.

That is the key with these types of public outcries, if this matter did not allude to God existing, I doubt you guys would be talking about peer reviews failing. In my experience evolutionists use peer-review as something to proverbially CLOUT creationists over the head with, I strongly suspect they would only detract from the peer-review epithet, IF and only IF something theistically flavoured worked it's way in there.

This is the first time I have ever known evolutionists to complain about peer review.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 03-04-2016 2:15 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29008
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 17 of 27 (779477)
03-04-2016 3:40 PM


Fortunately this is a case where peer review succeeded.
Peer review does not stop at publication, rather that is when peer review actually begins. In this case their may have been an error in allowing eraly publication but that error was caught and caught through peer review.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Pressie, posted 03-07-2016 5:59 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 137 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 18 of 27 (779478)
03-04-2016 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mike the wiz
03-04-2016 2:01 PM


Hi, Mike.

mike the wiz writes:

So you think that nature inventing something would make no sense to say? But I have read that many times in scientific literature, they often say things like the, "genius of evolution" or "evolutionary genius". Or, "nature's cleverness". These are all superb oxymorons, akin to saying, "fugacious pine trees".

Can you give examples? In my experience, this kind of expressive language is exactly the kind of thing that's discouraged in the technical literature. Science journals often publish opinion papers, editorials, special features and even some concept papers that might use this kind of language; but it's highly atypical for idioms and metaphorical language like that to appear in an experimental manuscript.

That said, lapses and weird things do happen. I once reviewed a certain paper written by foreign authors, which had good English grammar throughout; but they kept using the phrase "to the tune of" whenever they mentioned a sum of money (they were comparing the profit margins of insecticidal products, or something like that).

But, even taking that into account, this "design/mystery of the Creator" incident seems like quite a conspicuous outlier.

Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2016 2:01 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3628
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 19 of 27 (779480)
03-04-2016 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by mike the wiz
03-04-2016 1:47 PM


Re: Translation error
It's pretty obvious that nobody here is taking anything on faith. We're evaluating evidence, looking for more, and discussing possible interpretations and the reliability of what we have.

It's creationists that unquestioningly seize on any straw and refuse to question it.

HTH.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2016 1:47 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 20 of 27 (779481)
03-04-2016 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
03-04-2016 1:40 PM


Wut?

To suggest brilliant design is designed is just the height of pseudo-science and I am outraged, for if there was a creator God we would not expect evidence of design we would expect evidence of, "not design", just like we would expect that if you are a qualified scientist you should have no scientific credentials and if you are a human male you should have female genitalia.

Dewd, I hold rather unorthodox views when it comes to the origin of biochemical complexity, as the record of my past threads will demonstrate. That doesn't mean I shouldn't point out sloppy science papers, does it? Anyways, you can get back to trolling the internets.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2016 1:40 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 58
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 21 of 27 (779501)
03-05-2016 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
03-04-2016 2:15 PM


I can understand Nature translating to Creator. "Mysterious" could be translated hyperbole, like Awe Inspiring or Impressive or Very Cool.

But it does seem strange that these 2 awkward translations appeared in the same context.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 03-04-2016 2:15 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9648
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 22 of 27 (779682)
03-07-2016 1:14 AM


What does the rest of the paper say?

To be completely honest, provided that the science in the paper is on target, aren't the editorializing comments secondary anyway? I'd certainly be willing to accept the explanation of a bad translation if the actual paper made sense.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nwr, posted 03-07-2016 10:09 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1620
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 23 of 27 (779691)
03-07-2016 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
03-04-2016 3:40 PM


Re: Fortunately this is a case where peer review succeeded.
jar writes:

Peer review does not stop at publication, rather that is when peer review actually begins.

Exactly. Getting published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is the first and easiest step in the whole process. After that the thousands of specialists on the subject, from all over the world, step in. Scientific massacres and suicides could be involved...

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 03-04-2016 3:40 PM jar has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5526
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 24 of 27 (779707)
03-07-2016 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
03-07-2016 1:14 AM


To be completely honest, provided that the science in the paper is on target, aren't the editorializing comments secondary anyway?

I agree.

This seems to be an engineering paper. That is to say, it looks at hand coordination from an engineering perspective. And engineering is a design system.

Yes, the language used was unfortunate. But I think the criticism has been a tad excessive.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2016 1:14 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 25 of 27 (779719)
03-07-2016 11:39 AM


Failure To Replicate
I like the idea of a "bad science paper of the week". Let me provide another. This week's bad science paper made a lot of stir when it was published. But now it's looking distinctly dodgy ...

http://news.harvard.edu/...ercut-psych-research-got-it-wrong


Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 03-07-2016 11:44 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 03-08-2016 6:36 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29008
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 26 of 27 (779721)
03-07-2016 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
03-07-2016 11:39 AM


Peer review continues
Fortunately in science, peer review is an ongoing activity and even past results continue to be critically tested.

It's a useful tool.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-07-2016 11:39 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 27 of 27 (779765)
03-08-2016 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
03-07-2016 11:39 AM


Re: Failure To Replicate
quote:
...the Open Science Collaboration (OSC) tried to reproduce the results of 100 published studies. More than half of them failed, creating sensational headlines worldwide about the “replication crisis” in psychology.
.
.
.
But an in-depth examination of the data ... has revealed that the OSC made some serious mistakes that make its pessimistic conclusion completely unwarranted.

Seems to me the OSC has just created another data point supporting their own conclusions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-07-2016 11:39 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017