From gianola ansci.wisc.edu Thu Mar 3 08:07:05 2016
From: DANIEL GIANOLA <gianolaansci.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: The peer review system
To: Multiple Recipients of AnGenMap <angenmapanimalgenome.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 08:07:05 -0600
Another article in PLoS one (from Finland), but with a (very) different
perspective
http://journals.plos.org/...ne.0118314
Abstract:
Creationism is a religiously motivated worldview in denial of biological
evolution that has been very resistant to change. We performed a textual
analysis by examining creationist and pro-evolutionary texts for aspects of
experiential thinking, a cognitive process different from scientific
thought. We observed characteristics of experiential thinking as follows:
testimonials (present in 100% of sampled creationist texts), such as
quotations, were a major form of proof. Confirmation bias (100% of sampled
texts) was represented by ignoring or dismissing information that would
contradict the creationist hypothesis. Scientifically irrelevant or flawed
information was re-interpreted as relevant for the falsification of evolution
(7590% of sampled texts). Evolutionary theory was associated to moral issues
by demonizing scientists and linking evolutionary theory to atrocities
(6393% of sampled texts). Pro-evolutionary rebuttals of creationist claims
also contained testimonials (93% of sampled texts) and referred to moral
implications (80% of sampled texts) but displayed lower prevalences of
stereotypical thinking (47% of sampled texts), confirmation bias (27% of
sampled texts) and pseudodiagnostics (7% of sampled texts). The aspects of
experiential thinking could also be interpreted as argumentative fallacies.
Testimonials lead, for instance, to ad hominem and appeals to authorities.
Confirmation bias and simplification of data give rise to hasty
generalizations and false dilemmas. Moral issues lead to guilt by association
and appeals to consequences. Experiential thinking and fallacies can
contribute to false beliefs and the persistence of the claims. We propose
that science educators would benefit from the systematic analysis of
experiential thinking patterns and fallacies in creationist texts and pro-
evolutionary rebuttals in order to concentrate on scientific misconceptions
instead of the scientifically irrelevant aspects of the
creationistevolutionist debate.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : DANIEL GIANOLA [mailto:gianolaansci.wisc.edu]
Envoy : jeudi 3 mars 2016 00:24
: Multiple Recipients of AnGenMap
Objet : The peer review system
Just read the abstract of this PLoS One paper:
http://journals.plos.org/...ne.0146193
Draw your own conclusion.
Dan
|
