Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closePoor Form and Invalid Peer Review
Posted by politicoid on 08 Mar 2016 at 13:38 GMT
As others have mentioned, this is poor form, just for the fact that the peer reviewers and editors did not check for a translation error. However, even if there was no translation error, I am going to say that this was poor form. In fact, it borders on bigotry and broken science.
Every time we investigate a theory, we make a number of assumptions. These assumptions are folded into the theory that we investigate. We are testing the theory, with these assumptions included, and if we falsify the theory, we falsify it with those assumptions included.
As the paper stands, the author makes an assumption relating to a "creator" in the introduction. The assumption is of the form U: x -> y, that is assuming U, if x is true, then y is true as well. The paper then goes on to support x. Therefore, under U, y is supported.
RE: Poor Form and Invalid Peer Review
canofuncanny replied to politicoid on 09 Mar 2016 at 23:05 GMT
The assumption of a Creator has no place in a scientific paper because it is not an assumption that can be tested and disproven.