DELINGPOLE: ‘Penises Cause Climate Change’; Progressives Fooled by Peer-Reviewed Hoax

[Neo]

:salute:I mean....WHO KNEW!!!!!?:laugh:


DELINGPOLE: ‘Penises Cause Climate Change’; Progressives Fooled by Peer-Reviewed Hoax Study


Gender studies is a fake academic industry populated by charlatans, deranged activists and gullible idiots.

Now, a pair of enterprising hoaxers (http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/) has proved it scientifically by persuading an academic journal to peer-review and publish their paper claiming that the penis is not really a male genital organ but a social construct.

The paper, published by Cogent Social Sciences – “a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences” – also claims that penises are responsible for causing climate change.
The two hoaxers are Peter Boghossian, a full-time faculty member in the Philosophy department at Portland State University, and James Lindsay, who has a doctorate in math and a background in physics.


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/05/20/delingpole-penises-cause-climate-change-progressives-fooled-by-peer-reviewed-hoax-study/

[revelarts]

Since it's Been "PEER REVIEWED" and in the journal that means it MUST be true!
you folks are obviously just ignorant Penis Produced Climate Change (PPCC) DENIERS!!!
just BELIEVE the SCIENTIST why don'tc!ha???!!http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/mad.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/mad.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/slapme.gif

[aboutime]

:salute:I mean....WHO KNEW!!!!!?:laugh:


DELINGPOLE: ‘Penises Cause Climate Change’; Progressives Fooled by Peer-Reviewed Hoax Study


Gender studies is a fake academic industry populated by charlatans, deranged activists and gullible idiots.

Now, a pair of enterprising hoaxers (http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/) has proved it scientifically by persuading an academic journal to peer-review and publish their paper claiming that the penis is not really a male genital organ but a social construct.

The paper, published by Cogent Social Sciences – “a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences” – also claims that penises are responsible for causing climate change.
The two hoaxers are Peter Boghossian, a full-time faculty member in the Philosophy department at Portland State University, and James Lindsay, who has a doctorate in math and a background in physics.


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/05/20/delingpole-penises-cause-climate-change-progressives-fooled-by-peer-reviewed-hoax-study/


This also proves the entire PEER REVIEW was welcomed by DICKHEADS?http://icansayit.com/images/condumm.jpg

[KarlMarx]

:salute:I mean....WHO KNEW!!!!!?:laugh:


DELINGPOLE: ‘Penises Cause Climate Change’; Progressives Fooled by Peer-Reviewed Hoax Study


Gender studies is a fake academic industry populated by charlatans, deranged activists and gullible idiots.

Now, a pair of enterprising hoaxers (http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/) has proved it scientifically by persuading an academic journal to peer-review and publish their paper claiming that the penis is not really a male genital organ but a social construct.

The paper, published by Cogent Social Sciences – “a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences” – also claims that penises are responsible for causing climate change.
The two hoaxers are Peter Boghossian, a full-time faculty member in the Philosophy department at Portland State University, and James Lindsay, who has a doctorate in math and a background in physics.


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/05/20/delingpole-penises-cause-climate-change-progressives-fooled-by-peer-reviewed-hoax-study/

Now we can blame climate change on the patriarchy.... the NOW will be pleased.

Oh, but, wait, it's a hoax!

No matter! Feminists aren't worried about silly details like that!

Soon, based on these indisputable facts, our brave Senator from New York will be pounding the podium, with his glasses on the edge of his nose, looking into the camera, stating that we must have every male castrated in order to save the planet! And it should be covered by Obamacare, to boot!

Social Progress has been achieved!

[NightTrain]

pete311

Science.

[pete311]

None of Cogent's journals are even ranked at this peer review journal impact factor database.
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access-journals-impact-factors.php

So getting a fake study published in a non ranked journal is meh.

[Gunny]

I'm just bummed my hoo-ya is a social construct. :( I thought it was a d*ck. :)

[NightTrain]

None of Cogent's journals are even ranked at this peer review journal impact factor database.
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access-journals-impact-factors.php

So getting a fake study published in a non ranked journal is meh.

I suspect you didn't read the article. That's discussed.

[Black Diamond]

I suspect you didn't read the article. That's discussed.
He is rushing to find his dvd inconvenient horseshit, I mean inconvenient truth so he can rebut.

[Gunny]

He is rushing to find his dvd inconvenient horseshit, I mean inconvenient truth so he can rebut.,

I don't know, but if MY name was DelingPOLE, I think I'd let someone else take lead on this story. :)

[pete311]

I suspect you didn't read the article. That's discussed.

Not seeing anything that addresses the journals non existent impact factor.

[Neo]

I suspect you didn't read the article. That's discussed.

Petey, Petey, Petey...it was supposed to make you laugh, I know I did when I first read it. Why must you Libs be so anal retentive.....sheesh:poke:

Geez I thought it would show Pete's comment. Oh well, not directed at you NT.

[Gunny]

Not seeing anything that addresses the journals non existent impact factor.sure it has an iimpact. It's funny as Hell and putts egg on some faces.

Did you think anyone on the right actually expected the leftwingnut MSM to report is fast as they would all cover and repeat a Trump tweet? Not even. We no what to expect.:laugh:

Doesn't make the info disappear though.

[CSM]

This may or may not be a joke but I am willing to bet some idiot in our government will bring this forward to support some ridiculous argument near and dear to their heart. You can bet on it.

[pete311]

Petey, Petey, Petey...it was supposed to make you laugh, I know I did when I first read it. Why must you Libs be so anal retentive.....sheesh:poke:

Geez I thought it would show Pete's comment. Oh well, not directed at you NT.

So... maybe put it in the Humor sub forum instead of Current Events...????

[revelarts]

None of Cogent's journals are even ranked at this peer review journal impact factor database.
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access-journals-impact-factors.php

So getting a fake study published in a non ranked journal is meh.

Sorry Pete it's been done more than once and in "leading" journals and so so peer reviewed journals.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax, was a scholarly publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies – whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross – [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions"...

bottom line these 'Peer Reviewed' journals are FALLIBLE, and the fact that a paper appears or doesn't appear in one is no guarantee of it's Truth, accuracy or even it's seriousness.

ANY scientific paper, Like all other assertions of facts, stands or fall on the factors of it's EVIDENCE, REPRODUCIBILITY and LOGIC that back them, not the JOURNALS they appear in.

the journals are gate keepers and have some value but frankly they are similar to the MSM, once you know the biases of the particular journal or group you'll know what type of info you'll see in general but readers should check the details.

[revelarts]

None of Cogent's journals are even ranked at this peer review journal impact factor database.
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access-journals-impact-factors.php

So getting a fake study published in a non ranked journal is meh.

Nature magazine:
"Let’s make peer review scientific"
http://www.nature.com/news/how-scien...n-stop-1.18517 (http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop-1.18517)
Thirty years on from the first congress on peer review, Drummond Rennie reflects on the improvements brought about by research into the process — and calls for more.
Peer review is touted as a demonstration of the self-critical nature of science. But it is a human system. Everybody involved brings prejudices, misunderstandings and gaps in knowledge, so no one should be surprised that peer review is often biased and inefficient. It is occasionally corrupt, sometimes a charade, an open temptation to plagiarists. Even with the best of intentions, how and whether peer review identifies high-quality science is unknown. It is, in short, unscientific....
...To announce that first Peer Review Congress, I wrote: “There are scarcely any bars to eventual publication. There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print”10.

Unfortunately, that statement is still true today, and I'm not just talking about predatory journals. That said, I am confident that the Peer Review Congress scheduled for 2017 will be asking more incisive, actionable questions than ever before.


How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop
http://www.nature.com/news/how-scien...n-stop-1.18517
(http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop-1.18517)

[revelarts]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/26/00/3c/26003c7a2d3f23bbc61ce5155d84f258.jpg



Scientific America
Psychology's Ongoing Credibility Crisis

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...bility-crisis/ (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/psychology-s-ongoing-credibility-crisis/)

It’s a tough time to be a young psychologist. This thought keeps occurring to me as we search for a new psychology professor at my school, Stevens Institute of Technology. When I meet candidates, I have to ask about their field’s replication—and credibility—crisis.

I feel as though I’m pressing them on some sordid personal matter, like whether alcoholism runs in their families, but the topic is unavoidable. Last summer, a group called the “Open Science Collaboration” reported in Science that it had replicated fewer than half of 100 studies published in major psychology journals.

The New York Times declared in a front-page story that the report “confirmed the worst fears of scientists who have long worried that [psychology] needed a strong correction. The vetted studies were considered part of the core knowledge by which scientists understand the dynamics of personality, relationships, learning and memory. Therapists and educators rely on such findings to help guide decisions, and the fact that so many of the studies were called into question could sow doubt in the scientific underpinnings of their work.”

The crisis keeps generating headlines. On Friday, a group of four prominent psychologists led by Daniel Gilbert of Harvard claimed in Science that last year’s Open Collaboration study was statistically flawed and did not prove its claim that “the reproducibility of psychological science is low.” “Indeed,” Gilbert and his co-authors state, “the data are consistent with the opposite conclusion, namely, that the reproducibility of psychological science is quite high.”

Nature magazine
http://www.nature.com/news/over-half...y-test-1.18248
(http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248)
Phys.org
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-science-crisis.html

[pete311]

Cool, so stop using the machine in front of you. Apparently we don't know how it works. Don't go to a hospital. What do they know.

[NightTrain]

Cool, so stop using the machine in front of you. Apparently we don't know how it works. Don't go to a hospital. What do they know.

Still don't want to admit that there are many academics eager to jump on nonsense science, eh?

Especially one as awesome as 'Penises cause global warming!!!oneONE1".


I still chuckle when I remember that guy who got a bunch of protesting moonbats to sign a petition to ban H20. It was glorious.

[Black Diamond]

Still don't want to admit that there are many academics eager to jump on nonsense science, eh?

Especially one as awesome as 'Penises cause global warming!!!oneONE1".


I still chuckle when I remember that guy who got a bunch of protesting moonbats to sign a petition to ban H20. It was glorious.
Next the left will be pushing for mandatory gender reassignment Surgery.

[NightTrain]

Next the left will be pushing for mandatory gender reassignment Surgery.

Not going to lie... that rustles my jimmies.

[pete311]

Still don't want to admit that there are many academics eager to jump on nonsense science, eh?

Especially one as awesome as 'Penises cause global warming!!!oneONE1".


I still chuckle when I remember that guy who got a bunch of protesting moonbats to sign a petition to ban H20. It was glorious.

I guess I don't understand what your point is. I will never defend nonsense science. No system is perfect. You seem to want to discredit science yet enjoy living in a world built from it.

[NightTrain]

I guess I don't understand what your point is. I will never defend nonsense science. No system is perfect. You seem to want to discredit science yet enjoy living in a world built from it.

I don't discredit actual science. I love science.

What gets me, and most thinking Americans, is the bullshit that occurs when political leanings influence published results of studies. I know you understand this, so I don't know why you rehash the dance.

[revelarts]

Cool, so stop using the machine in front of you. Apparently we don't know how it works. Don't go to a hospital. What do they know.

you seem to think that if a "peer reviewed journal" hasn't published it then it's not science.
WTH?

MOST of the inventions and science break throughs we have today weren't "PUBLISHED" until after they came into use, IF AT ALL.

I'm using a MAC BTW and neither Jobs or Wozniack "published" before they put it on the market.
Pete do you use Light bulbs, simple arithmetic, calculus, algebra, telephones, electricity, a car, glasses, batteries, xrays, or soap? Well you better CHUCK it all in the trash. NONE were PUBLISHED in peer reviewed pubs BEFORE they were brought into use.

the nascent germ theory of medicine was RIDICULED by Doctors and scientist for many DECADES when presented as the cause of various diseases by observent dotors like Ignaz Semmelweis and John Snow. and many died as a result of the peer reviewed opinion of the day overruling clear observations.

As i said Peer Review is like the MSM, if you know the biases you can navigate the info to try an get at some facts. But folks should also look outside the MSM and official reports to see if there's more or counter info that brings reality in a clearer view.
Basically i'm advising THINK FOR YOURSELF, and ask questions just don't take the journals as "GOPEL truth" to be UNQUESTIONED. or only questioned by the "proper" authorities.

But hey Pete if you want BELIEVE everything you read from LEADING peer Reviewed Journals is FLAWLESS that's your right. But I'm not sure how you can logically keep your head on strait when those SAME Journals say that the Peer review process is fairly recent, has real flaws, needs work and always has.

Peer review: Troubled from the start
http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/the-birth-of-modern-peer-review/
"Peer review was introduced to scholarly publication in 1731 by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which published a collection of peer-reviewed medical articles. Despite this early start, in many scientific journal publications the editors had the only say on whether an article will be published or not until after World War II. “Science and The Journal of the American Medical Association did not use outside reviewers until after 1940, “(Spier, 2002). The Lancet did not implement peer-review until 1976 (Benos et al., 2006). After the war and into the fifties and sixties, the specialization of articles increased and so did the competition for journal space. Technological advances (photocopying!) made it easier to distribute extra copies of articles to reviewers. Today, peer review is the “golden standard” in evaluation of everything from scholarly publication to grants to tenure decision."





Apparently pete you don't get how science works.
It doesn't progress by PERR REVIEW, it progresses by people WORKING on the problems and recording their findings and/or theories.
POSITIVE peer review is simply icing on the cake.
It doesn't make anything true or flase.

[aboutime]

This thread proves how low most people must go...just to argue over words, tricks, and to display their ineptness. As Clint Eastwood said: Dirty Harry could not be produced today thanks to political correctness, says its star Clint Eastwood as he claims
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4528774/Clint-Eastwood-claims-dirty-harry-wouldn-t-today.html
'we've lost our sense of humour'

This is why I try to always give us some laughs here. It's more fun laughing, than arguing for the sake of arguing.
Clint Eastwood says 'Dirty Harry' wouldn't be made today for political reasons
He claims the hit film was not politically correct and may be offensive today
86-year-old said: 'Everyone's politically correct.
'We've lost our sense of humour'
Eastwood spoke at the Cannes Film Festival and also predicted acting return


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4528774/Clint-Eastwood-claims-dirty-harry-wouldn-t-today.html#ixzz4hqokUtrY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[BoogyMan]

I still chuckle when I remember that guy who got a bunch of protesting moonbats to sign a petition to ban H20. It was glorious.

Dihydrogen Monoxide will really mess you up!

[aboutime]

Dihydrogen Monoxide will really mess you up!


Imagine if Hillary had won. All of the so-called, whiny, intelligent liberals would have demanded that she BAN all forms of water.

After all. Any human being can drown from just a tablespoon of that Hazardous liquid.

Then again. Liberals are the same people who came up with WATERBOARDING.:laugh:

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk."Nov 3, 2007 Waterboarding: A Tortured History : NPR www.npr.org/2007/11/03/15886834/waterboarding-a-tortured-history

[pete311]

you seem to think that if a "peer reviewed journal" hasn't published it then it's not science.
WTH?

MOST of the inventions and science break throughs we have today weren't "PUBLISHED" until after they came into use, IF AT ALL.

I'm using a MAC BTW and neither Jobs or Wozniack "published" before they put it on the market.
Pete do you use Light bulbs, simple arithmetic, calculus, algebra, telephones, electricity, a car, glasses, batteries, xrays, or soap? Well you better CHUCK it all in the trash. NONE were PUBLISHED in peer reviewed pubs BEFORE they were brought into use.

the nascent germ theory of medicine was RIDICULED by Doctors and scientist for many DECADES when presented as the cause of various diseases by observent dotors like Ignaz Semmelweis and John Snow. and many died as a result of the peer reviewed opinion of the day overruling clear observations.

As i said Peer Review is like the MSM, if you know the biases you can navigate the info to try an get at some facts. But folks should also look outside the MSM and official reports to see if there's more or counter info that brings reality in a clearer view.
Basically i'm advising THINK FOR YOURSELF, and ask questions just don't take the journals as "GOPEL truth" to be UNQUESTIONED. or only questioned by the "proper" authorities.

But hey Pete if you want BELIEVE everything you read from LEADING peer Reviewed Journals is FLAWLESS that's your right. But I'm not sure how you can logically keep your head on strait when those SAME Journals say that the Peer review process is fairly recent, has real flaws, needs work and always has.

Peer review: Troubled from the start
http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/the-birth-of-modern-peer-review/
"Peer review was introduced to scholarly publication in 1731 by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which published a collection of peer-reviewed medical articles. Despite this early start, in many scientific journal publications the editors had the only say on whether an article will be published or not until after World War II. “Science and The Journal of the American Medical Association did not use outside reviewers until after 1940, “(Spier, 2002). The Lancet did not implement peer-review until 1976 (Benos et al., 2006). After the war and into the fifties and sixties, the specialization of articles increased and so did the competition for journal space. Technological advances (photocopying!) made it easier to distribute extra copies of articles to reviewers. Today, peer review is the “golden standard” in evaluation of everything from scholarly publication to grants to tenure decision."





Apparently pete you don't get how science works.
It doesn't progress by PERR REVIEW, it progresses by people WORKING on the problems and recording their findings and/or theories.
POSITIVE peer review is simply icing on the cake.
It doesn't make anything true or flase.

I think you are confusing engineering with science. One is application, the other is theory. I certainly do not believe all papers in peer reviewed journals. That is why there is a system called impact factor which uses citations for ranking. There are bad papers and bad journals. Sometimes there are bad papers in good journals, but as you go up the impact ranking system it happens less frequently.

[aboutime]

petey. Does your VALIDATED, ACCURATE, HONEST suggestion provide the answer to whether I can have control over CLIMATE CHANGE in my bedroom? Inquiring Minds want to know.

Please provide all of the hoax filled details that prove you are actually convinced of this SCIENCE thingy you seem so proud to ADVERTISE.

I will give you daily reports on the LEVELS of all Penis Caused actions if you want!:clap::bsflag:

[revelarts]

https://scontent.fsan1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18557290_1573708042674345_5859925053075648867_n.jp g?oh=72e1f07bd4f425b0f81895f1dd06288e&oe=59A3C4EF

[revelarts]

"...I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Phil Jones (http://www.azquotes.com/author/30695-Phil_Jones) Climate Scientist

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-in-my-more-than-60-years-as-a-member-of-the-american-scientific-community-including-frederick-seitz-59-52-69.jpg

[revelarts]

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-trouble-is-that-you-won-t-get-the-scientists-to-agree-on-a-course-of-action-it-is-frederick-seitz-73-92-09.jpg

Unless it's "settled Science" or in the best "peer reviewed" journals i guess.
If that's the case all other scientist need to STHU and BELIEVE the journals.

[aboutime]

Rev. Did you miss the part where this thread was announced as a HOAX?

You are so busy, always needing to be right about everything. I believe. When somebody asks you WHAT TIME IT IS....You tell them HOW THE CLOCK WORKS.