It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Epic failure in peer review? PLOS One scientific journal cites a creator. Scientists say OMG

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Rut ro - How did this happen?

A well known scientific journal, PLOS One, is in a major pickle for publishing a paper that in a multiple instances cited the hand of God as being responsible for the design of, well, the hand.

www.cnet.com...


There's been something of an outcry, therefore, since scientific journal PLOS One published a paper called "Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living."

This doesn't seem like a title that would engender controversy.

However, within the study is wording that some found disturbing. For example, in discussing the very clever way in which muscles work with human hand movements, the paper attributes this to "the proper design of the Creator."

This isn't isolated phraseology. Later, the paper talks about how the fine coordination of the human hand "should indicate the mystery of the Creator's invention."


Here's the paper- journals.plos.org...

And yeah - it definitely mentions the Creator.

The paper has since been retracted...

edit on 4-3-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Not surprising... Seems to be getting easier and easier to just pay for your journal to be published. "Peer Reviewed" has completely lost all significant meaning.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I can't see anywhere where it says that it was peer reviewed.

Also, a paper doesn't HAVE to be peer reviewed to be published.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Do the PLOS editorial staff have definite proof that there was no Creator or perhaps the observed science was lacking or untrue?

Talk about a storm in a teacup.

The best way to sort this out is to simply write an addendum to the summary of the article that identifies the terms and conclusions which are not compliant with scientific observation. This allows the actual science of the article to stand rather than be suppressed for being "politically incorrect", as it is now.

edit on 4/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: EequalsMC2
Not surprising... Seems to be getting easier and easier to just pay for your journal to be published. "Peer Reviewed" has completely lost all significant meaning.


Also, in answer to PhotonEffect too.

The paper WAS peer reviewed and editorially reviewed prior to publication.

Here's the PLOS One web page on the Peer Review process.

edit on 4/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not about being PC or not.

It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).

Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: EequalsMC2

I think you more or less hit the nail on the head.

To be candid, it's not this specific paper that concerns me. Even as a practicing Catholic I chuckled when I read about the movements of the hands pointing towards a Creator.

Just my opinion, but when people make statements that essentially say, "Because God did it," in my eyes it's like the internet meme of, "I'm not saying it's Aliens, but it's Aliens."

My concern is that while it is easy to dismiss "scientific publications" that point to supernatural answers to natural questions, what about all those publications that are BS but slip through because they are NOT God or Alien based and aren't so easily flagged for dismissal? There is SO MUCH junk science out there. Some of it is just poor research and some of it is put forward at the behest of those funding the "research."

Everything has been so politicized that I believe even though we have so many technological advancements, we are coming close to living in a scientific Dark Age.


edit on 5-3-2016 by eluryh22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: EequalsMC2
Not surprising... Seems to be getting easier and easier to just pay for your journal to be published. "Peer Reviewed" has completely lost all significant meaning.


Also, in answer to PhotonEffect too.

The paper WAS peer reviewed and editorially reviewed prior to publication.

Here's the PLOS One web page on the Peer Review process.


One VERY important part of the information on that page is this...



Peer review

The Academic Editor decides whether reviews from additional experts are needed to evaluate the manuscript. After agreeing to review a manuscript, external reviewers are typically granted 10 days to complete the assignment. We will follow up with late reviewers and keep authors informed if there are any delays.


So it's up to ONE person to decide if it needs reviewed from experts or not. That person is going to be either fired or seriously reprimanded.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79
Since you seem to be an expert, of what sort of quality is the article in question and the research covered in it beyond mention of this "Creator"? Paint me curious.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not about being PC or not.

It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).

Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.


The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.

Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.




posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Praetorius
a reply to: TerryDon79
Since you seem to be an expert, of what sort of quality is the article in question and the research covered in it beyond mention of this "Creator"? Paint me curious.


At a quick glance? Most of it seems OK. And if you just scanned it I'd be surprised if you'd even notice anything to do with a creator.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not about being PC or not.

It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).

Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.


The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.

Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.




The authors of the paper are the people that wrote it.

There is NO mention of it being peer reviewed.

The editorial staff can be as few as 1 person.

There is no proof for or against a creator. Science doesn't go there as it's a subject you can't prove right or wrong.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Didn't the people who did the study come out and say there was a misunderstanding? The people who wrote it were Chinese iirc and said they used the word creator wrong due to a mistranslation.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not about being PC or not.

It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).

Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.


The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.

Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.




The authors of the paper are the people that wrote it.

There is NO mention of it being peer reviewed.

The editorial staff can be as few as 1 person.

There is no proof for or against a creator. Science doesn't go there as it's a subject you can't prove right or wrong.


If the paper had spoken of the intricacies of the hand's mechanics as arising from the process of evolution, would you have accepted it?

What observed science do you have of the evolutionary processes specifically giving rise to the complex mechanics of the human hand? Despite having little actual hard science, neither you nor I would nay say the role of evolutionary development. We both take that component on faith, from what we know of science, it is reasonable to do so.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not about being PC or not.

It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).

Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.


The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.

Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.




The authors of the paper are the people that wrote it.

There is NO mention of it being peer reviewed.

The editorial staff can be as few as 1 person.

There is no proof for or against a creator. Science doesn't go there as it's a subject you can't prove right or wrong.


If the paper had spoken of the intricacies of the hand's mechanics as arising from the process of evolution, would you have accepted it?

What observed science do you have of the evolutionary processes specifically giving rise to the complex mechanics of the human hand? Despite having little actual hard science, neither you nor I would nay say the role of evolutionary development. We both take that component on faith, from what we know of science, it is reasonable to do so.


But science isn't about faith.

You can go out tomorrow and test anything that is claimed to be a scientific theory. If you find something wrong with it, have proof and the results can be repeated, then you can change that theory.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Didn't the people who did the study come out and say there was a misunderstanding? The people who wrote it were Chinese iirc and said they used the word creator wrong due to a mistranslation.


I'm trying to find out, but the website is now having server problems.

Probably due to a mass amount of people who found out this info and want to see it lol



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
God is more real than you could possibly imagine. In fact, you can tell him yourself that he's not real when you stand before him during your redemption. We all get to go back home, we are but just visitors here...



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Didn't the people who did the study come out and say there was a misunderstanding? The people who wrote it were Chinese iirc and said they used the word creator wrong due to a mistranslation.


Found it....

www.sciencealert.com


From the authors' perspective, they say it's simply a case of English not being their first language, as lead author Ming-Jin Liu explained in the paper's comments section:

"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 realised 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."


So it was a translation error. They meant nature and not creator.
edit on 054405/3/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
From the OP:


"the proper design of the Creator."

I don't think such wording has any place in a scientific paper. I don't have any problem if the author holds such religious views. But the discussion of a "Creator" deity taints the science. If for no other reason it detracts from the facts for those who find such concepts questionable. Even when the research itself is quite informative.

The word "Creator" seems innocent enough. But what if the equivalent name "The Grand Architect of the Universe" were used instead? I certainly would take exception to that wording. So, why go there at all?

I believe this incident demonstrates that the so-called "peer review" process is a joke.


ETA: I see that the authors were not native English speakers. However the replacement wording that they propose still seems to imply a conscious designer. And it still should have been caught in an authentic peer review.


-dex

edit on 3/5/2016 by DexterRiley because: updated info



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not about being PC or not.

It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).

Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.


The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.

Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.




The authors of the paper are the people that wrote it.

There is NO mention of it being peer reviewed.

The editorial staff can be as few as 1 person.

There is no proof for or against a creator. Science doesn't go there as it's a subject you can't prove right or wrong.


If the paper had spoken of the intricacies of the hand's mechanics as arising from the process of evolution, would you have accepted it?

What observed science do you have of the evolutionary processes specifically giving rise to the complex mechanics of the human hand? Despite having little actual hard science, neither you nor I would nay say the role of evolutionary development. We both take that component on faith, from what we know of science, it is reasonable to do so.


But science isn't about faith.

You can go out tomorrow and test anything that is claimed to be a scientific theory. If you find something wrong with it, have proof and the results can be repeated, then you can change that theory.


Please design a test for the evolution of the mechanics of the human hand. If you or any others cannot, then you must realize that you are applying an unequal criteria to what you will 'accept'.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join