From harry liverpool.ac.uk Thu Mar 3 14:13:15 2016
From: Harry Noyes <harryliverpool.ac.uk>
To: Multiple Recipients of AnGenMap <angenmapanimalgenome.org>
Subject: Fwd: The peer review system
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:13:15 -0600
The authors defence appears to be they are not creationists but that they
have no understanding of evolution either:
"We are sorry for drawing the debates about creationism. Our study has no
relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our
understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English
speaker expected. Now we realized that we had misunderstood the word
Creator. What we would like to express is that the biomechanical
characteristic of tendious connective architecture between muscles and
articulations is a proper design by the NATURE (result of evolution) to
perform a multitude of daily grasping tasks. We will change the Creator to
nature in the revised manuscript. We apologize for any troubles may have
caused by this misunderstanding.
We have spent seven months doing the experiments, analysis, and write up. I
hope this paper will not be discriminated only because of this
misunderstanding of the word. Please could you read the paper before making
a decision˙˙
In Comments in reply to Statement by PLoS ONE.
There are serious questions to be asked of the editor: Renzhi Han, Ohio
State University Medical Center, UNITED STATES
Harry
Harry Noyes
University of Liverpool
http://www.genomics.liv.ac.uk/tryps
harryliv.ac.uk
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: DANIEL GIANOLA <gianolaansci.wisc.edu>
> Subject: Re: The peer review system
> Date: 3 March 2016 14:07:05 GMT
> To: Multiple Recipients of AnGenMap <angenmapanimalgenome.org>
> Resent-From: <angenmapanimalgenome.org>
>
> 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
|
