LGBT shuts down science

[The Grand Nudger]

Reality has a well known bias against the contents of peoples faiths.  Take it up with the universe, it's your problem.

Do you have an example for how you came to that conclusion?   I don't find the same in regards to my faith.

Nope, not a single one..as we all know, the contents of every single nutters faith have been repeatedly shown to be absolutely true, and no nutter has ever mistakenly believed that those contents where true when they were not...

-least of all your august self.



Have you two reached a consensus yet on whether this is junk sci or the gaygenda killing good sci? I wanna know what's certainly and absolutely true this time, too.

[Angrboda]

Fair enough. But bear in mind that it normally happens when the alternative is a religionist pushing ideas about the nature of reality that have had zero peer review.

This seems to be a bias against those of faith, which bias is one of the issues.   Also remember the discussion that peer review isn't just the initial review of the publishing journal.  If there is good reason to argue against a specific study, then I think that should be presented and discussed, rather than making hyperbole about "zero peer review".

bias, n.

1. prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Unless you're not using the term in the usual sense, that of unfair prejudice, then your complaint here seems to be unfounded. As a technical matter, biases are usually defined as a departure from what would otherwise be the rational conclusion. Since a prejudice against religious ideas that lack peer review and in favor of those that possess it is rational, your complaint, even if technically correct with regard to the meaning of the word bias misses the mark as to the substance of her point.

[Crossless2.0]

RR, are the practices of the Discovery Institute examples of good peer review, or are they driven by a very particular brand of Protestant bias?

[The Grand Nudger]

What a silly question.  RR knows that ID is the absolute and infallible truth of his almighty god.  No bias, no bias, biology is the bias.

[Amarok]

http://www.transadvocate.com/rapid-onset..._22079.htm

Another article it's pretty well argued

---

Here's one from medium (not the most objective source but the article makes some good points )

https://medium.com/@themicheab/rapid-ons...16bdee5b8b

[RoadRunner79]

RR, are the practices of the Discovery Institute examples of good peer review, or are they driven by a very particular brand of Protestant bias?

I don't think that they are free from the same issues of everyone else if you are asking.  I would imagine that they do reject papers based on peer review, and their lack of scientific rigor .   They may also reject articles that don't fit with the purpose and intent of that journal.   But I would think that the question would require some example of a practice or principle in question in order to answer.  I'm not familiar with their specific practices or what you seem to be pointing to.

edit:  As I've alluded, I'm more interested in the discussion of a particular argument for and against a specific article or conclusion.  And even then, I'm looking at the data and while I take into consideration the reasons and conclusions of the paper, I can form my own informed opinion.   I also look at the reasons against.  I don't have any issues with the discovery institute by and large.

[The Grand Nudger]

[Amarok]

[Whateverist]

What a silly question.  RR knows that ID is the absolute and infallible truth of his almighty god.  No bias collusion, no bias collusion!!

Messed around with that for you.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's one giant knot of co-morbidity, it seems.