Learning from Bad Papers in Sedimentology

Everyone here knows what sediment is, right?

"You mean getting emotional about the past, like 'I'm Getting Sedimental Over You', Cowboy Bob?"

A couple of letters off, that song and what you're describing is Sentimental.

Sediment is the dirt, small stones, and so on that are transported by rivers. When they are moving quickly, they carry more and heavier stuff, and when the water slows, things drop out of it. Come on, you all knew that even though I over-simplified it. A branch of geology is dedicated to the study of all this and has the sensible name of sedimentology.

Sediment-laden water from a tributary, entering the clearer Chattahoochee River / USGS, Public Domain (endorsement of site contents not implied)

We have seen numerous times that secular journals and the secular peer review process have numerous difficulties. Some of the peer review problems are from Darwinists consistently living the morality of their worldview and doing what they feel makes them survive better even if it means cheating. There are problems with the judging and oversight, the reproducibility crisis, retracted papers that are still cited as evidence for positions taken, and more. Some misotheists and evolutionists don't care, as long as things seem to support fish-to-fool evolution.

However, there are secular scientists that have integrity and are concerned about problems in peer review and the writing of science papers. While those referenced in the link below are involved in sedimentology, the fake science virus spreads to geology as well as other areas of the secular science industry. (This must hurt folks who are just trying to do their jobs.) You will have noticed that many articles linked here discuss papers in secular science, and creation scientists critique them. The warning is that creationists must glorify God with the highest standards; we must not allow the same kinds of mistakes, biases, and so forth to affect creation science work.

Veteran sedimentologist V. Paul Wright was asked to write a short editorial for a new section in the Journal of Sedimentary Research. He wrote it about a recent trend of flawed research in sedimentology. His conversations with other veteran sedimentologists confirmed his observations.

In particular, he noted three problems. The first is accepting unsubstantiated claims as the basis for a new interpretation, which is, in turn, believed and repeated. He calls this a ‘meme’. Second are studies based on non-existent data, which he calls ‘fake news’. Third is the lack of empiricism. Sedimentologists feel free to reinterpret data sets without presenting any new research, or fail to question data.

To read the rest, click on "Many flawed papers in sedimentology."