Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 23 posts ] 
Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted
Author Message
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

Was the paper retracted because of "bad" science or because the paper was contrary of the popular worldview, Naturalism? Here in real time, check it out before the paper is retracted:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0146193

According to DiamLiam84 (LoR poster) always insists that I post a paper to be published; and if I don't then I should just go away. We all know that will not happen because of overwhelming bias of today's naturalism within the scientific circles.


"Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a 'Creator', and about the overall rationale and findings of the study.

Upon receiving these concerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluation of the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought further advice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review.

Consequently, the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.

The editors apologize to readers for the inappropriate language in the article and the errors during the evaluation process."



Why you ask? Why was the paper retracted? Because the paper mentions the C word, which is Creator. A cuss word to Naturalism.

Evolution has nothing to do with science, evidence, facts, or logic. It's based on naturalism.
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sun Mar 06, 2016 3:04 pm
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

DutchLiam84 ;)

All aboard the cospiracy train!

The paper is not against naturalism perse as they describe in the discussion, maybe you should actually read the paper. :roll:
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Sun Mar 06, 2016 3:34 pm
WWW
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

DutchLiam84 wrote:DutchLiam84 ;)

All aboard the cospiracy train!

The paper is not against naturalism perse as they describe in the discussion, maybe you should actually read the paper. :roll:



I know. The paper isn't against evolution. The authors are evolutionists themselves. However, the paper will be retracted because of the certain words used; i.e., Creator and design.

But no, no conspiracy here... :mrgreen:
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sun Mar 06, 2016 3:44 pm
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

From the paper itself:

In conclusion, our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodelling of the ancestral hand for millions of years.


It isn't even challenging evolution. At best, you could say it's challenging atheism. Given there are scientists who accept evolution and believe in God, I don't see a conspiracy here.

The problem is claiming God guided evolution has no evidence backing it currently. That's a theological position, really. Because of that, the editors were right to retract this paper, as it made claims that are inherently unfalsifiable, and as such, unscientific. Had there already been published papers showing evidence God guided evolution, or there was some way to falsify that, then the editors reaction would have been different.
Sun Mar 06, 2016 3:52 pm
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

I don't think the paper is being retracted over the word "design", merely "Creator". I personally think the scientific community overreacted to this. If the data is okay, just ask the authors to rewords their findings. According to the authors, it was a mistake lost in translation as English is not their first language. Still, the journal should have caught this mistake and the journal should not have been allowed to publish this paper before revisions.

As many times before, I fail to see your point, Rhed.
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Sun Mar 06, 2016 3:56 pm
WWW
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

Indeed. Some of the twitter comments to the editors I'm seeing mention that seeing words like "Creator" isn't unheard of in papers.

Taking a step back, it isn't even the claim itself thay the problem. The PloS editors evidently didn't read the paper before sending it through, so when somebody raised an eyebrow to it they freaked out, not because of some atheist conspiracy, but because it's not good to have "sloppy editor" on your record. That's the whole issue here, apparently the peer review process in general for PloS needs some revision.
Last edited by itsdemtitans on Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:03 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

DutchLiam84 wrote:I don't think the paper is being retracted over the word "design", merely "Creator". I personally think the scientific community overreacted to this. If the data is okay, just ask the authors to rewords their findings. According to the authors, it was a mistake lost in translation as English is not their first language. Still, the journal should have caught this mistake and the journal should not have been allowed to publish this paper before revisions.

DutchLiam84 wrote:As many times before, I fail to see your point, Rhed.


Because you cannot understand the point. It's way over your atheistic naturalistic head. :roll:
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:05 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

itsdemtitans wrote:Indeed. Some of the twitter comments to the editors I'm seeing mention that seeing words like "Creator" isn't unheard of in papers.

Taking a step back, it isn't even the claim itself thay the problem. The PloS editors evidently didn't read the paper before sending it through, so when somebody raised an eyebrow to it they freaked out, not because of some atheist conspiracy, but because it's not good to have "sloppy editor" on your record. That's the whole issue here, apparently the peer review process in general for PloS needs some revision.


So where is this "sloppy editing"?

And no, there isn't a atheist conspiracy, who would think such a thing... :)
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:09 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3486Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

I heard about this from the Panda's Thumb and knew the creationists were going to have a field day with it. Everything about this points to how peer-review is not perfect. Oh well, to error is to be human.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:45 pm
YIM WWW
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

Rhed wrote:Because you cannot understand the point. It's way over your atheistic naturalistic head. :roll:

Then explain it to me, oh wise one.
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:12 pm
WWW
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I heard about this from the Panda's Thumb and knew the creationists were going to have a field day with it. Everything about this points to how peer-review is not perfect. Oh well, to error is to be human.


True dat.

But do you believe that maybe peer-review may be bias towards naturalism...just a smidgen. Or am I completely way off my rocker on this?
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:34 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

DutchLiam84 wrote:
Rhed wrote:Because you cannot understand the point. It's way over your atheistic naturalistic head. :roll:

Then explain it to me, oh wise one.



The consensus worldview among scientists is that no divine foot can get in the door. Naturalism is the only worldview allowed in this day in age. Read the paper and tell me that this is not science. The only reason this paper will be retracted is because of the...close you eyes...the term Creator was used. Evolutionists went nuts over this word because it appeared in in a peer reviewed journal. It was the common diatribe anti-Creationists use like...shameful, pseudo science, non-scientific, an embarrassment, etc.

Where is the tolerance and respect for other beliefs? Did the authors provide any evidence for emergence of the hand by unguided processes of mutation and selection? If not, what’s the problem?
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:00 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3486Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I heard about this from the Panda's Thumb and knew the creationists were going to have a field day with it. Everything about this points to how peer-review is not perfect. Oh well, to error is to be human.


True dat.

But do you believe that maybe peer-review may be bias towards naturalism...just a smidgen. Or am I completely way off my rocker on this?


Are you honestly asking me if science is biased towards reality?

:lol:

Show us that there is something other than the natural, than we will talk.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:33 pm
YIM WWW
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Show us that there is something other than the natural, than we will talk.


We live in a natural world with natural stuff in it. But nature didn't create itself.
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:57 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

Rhed wrote:Evolution has nothing to do with science, evidence, facts, or logic. It's based on naturalism.

You keep repeating this mantra but seem unwilling or unable to back it up. Care to start doing so?
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:08 pm
Steelmage99Posts: 203Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

Rhed wrote:
Where is the tolerance and respect for other beliefs?


Beliefs are completely and utterly irrelevant in science. Hard data is the currency of the realm.

Like it was back in school. Show your work, and if you can't show it, you don't know it.

"The Feels" is simply not an argument for anything.
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:02 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2682Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Show us that there is something other than the natural, than we will talk.


We live in a natural world with natural stuff in it. But nature didn't create itself.


But God did?

And how do you know nature didn't create itself?

Or that it didn't always exist?

Or something else that we can't quite grasp or imagine? (After all, science has shown us that nature is weirder than we could ever have imagined. Quantum physics, anyone?)

This perpetual insistence of theists that "Ooh, this cannot be explained. It MUST be God" is getting incredibly tiresome to listen to. Not necessarily because it's wrong, but more because it's such an obviously emotional argument. Seriously, detach yourselves from your emotions for just ONE SECOND when talking about answers to big questions! For the love of...
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:47 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3486Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Show us that there is something other than the natural, than we will talk.


We live in a natural world with natural stuff in it. But nature didn't create itself.


What created nature? How do you propose we test for this?

I will come out and admit that I do not know how nature came to be. Simply because I do not know does not mean I am going to substitute that ignorance for something without evidence. However, your argument from ignorance is noted.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Mar 07, 2016 1:17 am
YIM WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3190Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

Greetings,

As far as I understand it, the paper was published - through a failure in the peer-review process;

PLos ONE publishes paper giving credit to God for designing the human hand

Note the authors' explanation that English is not their first language, and that they meant "Nature" rather than a supernatural "Creator" - whether this is correct or not is hard to say.

Subsequently, the paper was withdrawn:

PLoS ONE retracts goddy paper on the human hand

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:18 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3486Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Peer Reviewed Paper Retracted

Oh look, the creationists are starting to come out of the woodworks about this molehill. We are watching in realtime as a new chapter is being added to the crestionist's mythos.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:36 am
YIM WWW
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 23 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests