More Censorship in the Secular Science Industry
A spell back, I wrote about how politics can imprison science because in many cases, secularists hijack science for their own ends, such as gender confusion. Now we see an example of the secular science industry refusing to correct a paper because it did not fit the agenda.
The science establishment adores Papa Darwin and strives to protect him from scrutiny, even if bad science needs to be lassoed and brought into the corral. There is a reproducibility crisis where paper are submitted relying on other papers, but the original findings are not replicated and can be spurious. Peer review? That has a passel of problems, even though many people adore it. Anti-creationist tinhorns often demand to be shown a peer-reviewed paper (as if they could understand it in the first place). When they are shown such papers from creationist organizations, they utilize the genetic fallacy and light a shuck out of there.
Naturalists are none too keen on Conservatives, Christians, and especially biblical creationists. Recently, a study of the Shroud of Turin was under-reported and new information questioning the techniques used in previous research was questioned. At least this has a semblance of being corrected.
However, a paper purported to show why people hold certain political beliefs (which disparaged Conservatives). This was challenged and the findings did not match the established narrative. It was ignored, and the journal even refused peer review. This was a case of blatant censorship and deficient morality in science.
 |
| Mostly made at Add Letters, plus clip art and additional text |
Naturalists are none too keen on Conservatives, Christians, and especially biblical creationists. Recently, a study of the Shroud of Turin was under-reported and new information questioning the techniques used in previous research was questioned. At least this has a semblance of being corrected.
However, a paper purported to show why people hold certain political beliefs (which disparaged Conservatives). This was challenged and the findings did not match the established narrative. It was ignored, and the journal even refused peer review. This was a case of blatant censorship and deficient morality in science.
To read the entire article, click on "Liberal Journal and Media Disparage Conservatives, but Censor Falsification".A study originally published 2008 in Science, by John Hibbing et al., titled “Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits” has now been replicated with opposite results. What happened next reveals a lot about censorship in science.An attempt to replicate a claim, particularly a controversial claim, should be the normal procedure in science. Repeatability, indeed, is supposed to be a hallmark of the scientific method. In this case, though, the original study, called the Oxley study, was convincingly falsified. . . .The authors and others are concerned that the reason it was rejected was due to bias against conservatives and creationists. The original study showed conservatives [and creationists] in a very poor light, and liberals [and evolutionists] in a far better light. At the least, the new study should have been peer reviewed and, if valid concerns were determined to exist, the study could have been rejected for valid reasons. This did not happen.