LogFAQs > #910558606

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	The Gender studies hoax - fake papers passing peer review
knutjob 10/15/18 9:42:36 AM #39:	COVxy posted... scar the 1 posted... When a paper seems to have an experiment with actually interesting results, only that the conclusion is way out there, how do you judge that? Because that's the case here, they mix plausible data with outlandish reasoning. I would reject it in the position of an editor. If the conclusions don't match the data, that's a severe flaw. If I ran a pure behavioral study on visual detection, and then concluded about thalamocortical basis of attentional tuning, it would get desk rejected. Almost certainly. You can't just conclude anything if you have "data". Scientific reasoning is making reasonable conclusions in the light of data. That's all science is. What about if you submitted a paper with a study showing vaccinations cause autism? <cite>knutjob posted [p:910558606] in The Gender... [t:77099140]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote>When a paper seems to have an experiment with actually interesting results, only that the conclusion is way out there, how do you judge that? Because that's the case here, they mix plausible data with outlandish reasoning.</quote> I would reject it in the position of an editor. If the conclusions don't match the data, that's a severe flaw. If I ran a pure behavioral study on visual detection, and then concluded about thalamocortical basis of attentional tuning, it would get desk rejected. Almost certainly. You can't just conclude anything if you have "data". Scientific reasoning is making reasonable conclusions in the light of data. That's all science is.</quote> What about if you submitted a paper with a study showing vaccinations cause autism?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1