Peer-Reviewed Hoaxes and Postmodernism
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
An occasional plot device in books, movies, and television is when a character uses untoward means to make a point. Perhaps he or she was ignored by the government or an employer about serious problems in software or something that were ignored, so the problem is dramatically demonstrated. In a similar manner, hoax papers have been submitted to peer-reviewed journals — and accepted.
One notable incident was when Alan Sokal submitted an article to a postmodern journal in 1996, causing academic embarrassment. Postmodernism is where truth is relative and absolute truth is rejected. It is also self-refuting, inconsistent, and unlivable. Like atheism, when someone following either philosophy says that something is evil or wrong, that person is appealing to an absolute standard. Ultimately, they are appealing to the truth of God!
Secular science has a definite leftist bias. Current sexual preference and science-denying "sexual dysphoria" trends are embraced, as are global climate change, radical feminism with misandry, and more.
Likewise, peer review in the secular science industry is not a guarantee of objectivity or accuracy, and bad papers are frequently passed; readers of this site have seen reports of bad peer-reviewed science promoting fish-to-fraud evolution. Some of these were computer-generated; I made one myself.
Two serious problems hound secular science. One is the loud silence of null results being unpublished; if nothing is found, no report is made. This is detrimental to science research, because people need to know what does not work. In addition, there is the reproducibility crisis. That is, a study may have been conducted, referenced, and not be valid. Additional studies may not be made to support or refute the original research because apparatchiks of the secular science industry approve of the results.
A major part of the peer-review problem is that secular researchers and their obedient lapdog media exhibit confirmation bias, seeing what they want to see instead of what the evidence actually indicates. Unfortunately, people did not heed the 1996 hoax paper wake-up call. In 2018, more deliberately bad papers were submitted to a postmodern radical feminist journal. Many were praised and published by the owlhoots in charge.
One was about canine sexual misconduct in Portland, Oregon parks. It included "oppression" and "rape", two prominent leftist buzzwords. The part that really got my attention is that the research (again, it is a fake paper) was applied to human culture. Evolutionists frequently do that same nonsense. Essentially, the feminists embraced the material because it supports their presupposition that men are bad. That's confirmation bias again, old son and daughter.
We see frequently see confirmation bias in origins research. F'rinstance, the supposititious dysteleological claim of evolutionists that the human body was poorly designed, therefore, evolution. Secularists see what they want to see, and not necessarily what exists in reality. Again, scientists are not dispassionate and objective, they interpret information to conform to their worldviews. The truth is that we were designed by our Creator (Psalm 19:1-6, Romans 1:18-22, Psalm 14:1), and no amount of denial or tampering with data can change the truth.
This was my perspective on the reports, now I hope you'll take a notion to read or hear Dr. Mohler's Christian worldview perspective. I'd be much obliged if you'd click on "The Briefing" for Thursday, Oct 4, 2018.
An occasional plot device in books, movies, and television is when a character uses untoward means to make a point. Perhaps he or she was ignored by the government or an employer about serious problems in software or something that were ignored, so the problem is dramatically demonstrated. In a similar manner, hoax papers have been submitted to peer-reviewed journals — and accepted.
 |
| Credit: Unsplash / Christin Hume |
Secular science has a definite leftist bias. Current sexual preference and science-denying "sexual dysphoria" trends are embraced, as are global climate change, radical feminism with misandry, and more.
Likewise, peer review in the secular science industry is not a guarantee of objectivity or accuracy, and bad papers are frequently passed; readers of this site have seen reports of bad peer-reviewed science promoting fish-to-fraud evolution. Some of these were computer-generated; I made one myself.
Two serious problems hound secular science. One is the loud silence of null results being unpublished; if nothing is found, no report is made. This is detrimental to science research, because people need to know what does not work. In addition, there is the reproducibility crisis. That is, a study may have been conducted, referenced, and not be valid. Additional studies may not be made to support or refute the original research because apparatchiks of the secular science industry approve of the results.
A major part of the peer-review problem is that secular researchers and their obedient lapdog media exhibit confirmation bias, seeing what they want to see instead of what the evidence actually indicates. Unfortunately, people did not heed the 1996 hoax paper wake-up call. In 2018, more deliberately bad papers were submitted to a postmodern radical feminist journal. Many were praised and published by the owlhoots in charge.
One was about canine sexual misconduct in Portland, Oregon parks. It included "oppression" and "rape", two prominent leftist buzzwords. The part that really got my attention is that the research (again, it is a fake paper) was applied to human culture. Evolutionists frequently do that same nonsense. Essentially, the feminists embraced the material because it supports their presupposition that men are bad. That's confirmation bias again, old son and daughter.
We see frequently see confirmation bias in origins research. F'rinstance, the supposititious dysteleological claim of evolutionists that the human body was poorly designed, therefore, evolution. Secularists see what they want to see, and not necessarily what exists in reality. Again, scientists are not dispassionate and objective, they interpret information to conform to their worldviews. The truth is that we were designed by our Creator (Psalm 19:1-6, Romans 1:18-22, Psalm 14:1), and no amount of denial or tampering with data can change the truth.
This was my perspective on the reports, now I hope you'll take a notion to read or hear Dr. Mohler's Christian worldview perspective. I'd be much obliged if you'd click on "The Briefing" for Thursday, Oct 4, 2018.