Tag: Retraction Watch

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O’Leary

Date
March 21, 2025

Categories
Bioethics
Psychology
Sociology
Tagged
, anxiety, Augustine Brannigan, college students, crying, emotional depression, experimental design, Office of Naval Research, penologists, persistent scientific errors, Philip G. Zimbardo, prison breaks, prisoner abuse, prisoners, psychologists, public policy, rage, Retraction Crisis, Retraction Watch, San Quentin State Prison, self-correcting, social psychology, Stanford Prison Experiment, Stanford University, study design, Thibault Le Texier, University of Calgary}

Retract the Stanford Prison Experiment?

_{Denyse O’Leary
March 21, 2025

Bioethics, Psychology, Sociology

7}

Beware of wildly popular sociology that tells us that our public policy preferences are somehow embedded in human nature. Life was never as simple as that. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Date
February 24, 2024

Categories
Bioethics
Physical Sciences
Tagged
, data, economics, Elsevier, Excel, Gary Smith, Netherlands, New Zealand, Retraction Watch, science journals, United Kingdom, United States, University of Copenhagen, Zoom}

Data Can Appear in Science Journals — Out of Thin Air

_{Science and Culture
February 24, 2024

Bioethics, Physical Sciences

5}

While many researchers decried the results, University of Copenhagen econometrician Søren Johansen said something worth pondering. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O’Leary

Date
August 13, 2023

Categories
Mathematics
Medicine
Neuroscience & Mind
Tagged
, Adam Marcus, COVID-19, Francesca Gino, Harvard Business School, honesty, Ivan Oransky, John Ioannidis, Matt Ridley, neuroscientists, Retraction Watch, scandal, science, Stanford University, The Guardian, Theo Baker, Times Higher Education}

Science Is Self-Correcting? Time for a Reality Check

_{Denyse O’Leary
August 13, 2023

Mathematics, Medicine, Neuroscience & Mind

5}

In the wake of the Stanford scandal, the reasons why science often ISN’T self-correcting are attracting much more attention. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
David Klinghoffer

Date
October 20, 2020

Categories
Fine-tuning
Intelligent Design
Scientific Freedom
Tagged
, cancel culture, censorship, COVID-19, disclaimer, intelligent design, Journal of Theoretical Biology, molecular machines, Ola Hössjer, peer-reviewed literature, researchers, Retraction Watch, scientists, Steinar Thorvaldsen}

Journal Finds It Can’t Keep a Good Pro-ID Paper Down

_{David Klinghoffer
October 20, 2020

Fine-tuning, Intelligent Design, Scientific Freedom

2}

As a reader points out, the paper is the journal’s No. 1 most downloaded article, beating out several others in the Top 10 about Covid and related hot topics. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
David Klinghoffer

Date
October 9, 2020

Categories
Biology
Fine-tuning
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, Adam Marcus, Akira Sasaki, corruption, Denise Kirschner, disclaimer, editors, Elsevier, Evolution News, incompetence, intelligent design, John West, Journal of Theoretical Biology, keywords, Mark Chaplain, Ola Hössjer, publisher, reputations, Retraction Watch, science journals, scientists, Steinar Thorvaldsen}

Corruption Watch: Biology Journal Blames the Innocent, Turns ID Scientists into Fall Guys

_{David Klinghoffer
October 9, 2020

Biology, Fine-tuning, Intelligent Design

4}

For those who are always lecturing us about “Follow the science” and “Believe the scientists,” this episode should be an eye opener. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
February 6, 2020

Categories
Evolution
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, __edited, Adam Marcus, evolution, evolutionists, Granville Sewell, hallucination, intelligent design, Retraction Watch, Second Law of Thermodynamics}

Getting “Intelligent Design” Backward

_{Casey Luskin
February 6, 2020

Evolution, Intelligent Design

2}

That framing is backwards, or perhaps upside-down, probably in order to make the paper by Granville Sewell sound unreasonable. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Date
February 5, 2020

Categories
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, __edited, Adam Marcus, Applied Mathematics Letters, autism, bioRxiv, compensation argument, coronavirus, Dilbert, Elsevier, entropy, evolution, Evolution News, Granville Sewell, India, intelligent design, Ivan Oransky, junk science, Nautilus, peer review, Physics Essays, Retraction Watch, Scott Adams, Second Law of Thermodynamics, Why Evolution Is Different}

Retraction Watch Guys Hallucinate “Intelligent Design” Yet Again

_{Science and Culture
February 5, 2020

Intelligent Design

6}

A helpful formulation comes from podcaster Scott Adams, of “Dilbert” fame, who comments entertainingly on the political scene. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Wesley J. Smith

Date
August 24, 2019

Categories
Ethics
Medicine
Tagged
, __edited, China, Communist Party, heart, human rights, kidney, liver, New Scientist, organ-transplant surgery, organs, Retraction Watch}

Fifteen Science Papers Retracted Over China Illegal Organ Harvesting

_{Wesley J. Smith
August 24, 2019

Ethics, Medicine

2}

Human-rights activists have castigated China for allowing this organ bazaar for years. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Granville Sewell

Date
August 23, 2018

Categories
Evolution
Scientific Freedom
Tagged
, __k-review, “consensus science”, Adam Marcus, Applied Mathematics Letters, carbon, compensation, earth, Elsevier, entropy, Granville Sewell, intelligent design, Ivan Oransky, natural selection, open system, order, Physics Essays, pseudoscience, Retraction Watch, Second Law of Thermodynamics}

So, Who Is Doing “Pseudoscience”?

_{Granville Sewell
August 23, 2018

Evolution, Scientific Freedom

8}

You will be astonished by how corrupt science can become when reviewers are “very, very vigilant” to protect consensus science. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
David Klinghoffer

Date
December 8, 2017

Categories
Biology
Intelligent Design
Origin of Life
Tagged
, __k-review, Ann Gauger, belief, bias, Brian Miller, DNA, intelligent design, Jack Szostak, materialism, monomers, Nature Chemistry, peptides, proteins, Retraction Crisis, Retraction Watch, RNA, RNA self-replication, Scientific American, Signature in the Cell, skepticism, Stephen Meyer}

Prominent Retraction Vindicates Stephen Meyer and Signature in the Cell

_{David Klinghoffer
December 8, 2017

Biology, Intelligent Design, Origin of Life

4}

Criticism suggested that Nobel laureate Jack Szostak and others were fast closing in on a solution to the origin-of-life problem with the “principle of RNA self-replication." Read More ›