Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

one word: shameful

Posted by polgy on 03 Mar 2016 at 19:36 GMT

It is really difficult to imagine how this paper could ever be published.

The concept of a 'Creator' is simply unrelated to science. It is a metaphysical, non-falsifiable hypothesis. A metaphysical hypothesis is the biggest philosophical bias a scientific mind can produce, worse than a personal opinion, worse than any sort of false data, since it cannot be tested to be false.

We would always read false hypotheses on scientific papers. As Bachelard said: "the history of science is a precious graveyard of false theories". Science is science because it declares itself to be intrinsically fallible, as Peirce reminded. For this reason, we should never read metaphysical concepts on a scientific publication. Because metaphysical concepts are NOT intrinsically fallible. They cannot be falsified, by definition. For a scientific mind, they are worse than false: they are entirely useless. They consume our time and energy as scientists. They simply are not science.

We should read about science on a scientific journal. I don't like labels, but my job is to be a scientist. And as a scientist, I am aware of the responsibility I have towards the society and the scientific community.
Scientists build their careers, and are paid by governments with public money, to make science. Science has a history, a cultural background, a scientific community, hundreds of years of philosophical debate and efforts. It has a centennial history of inquisition, battles, blood, burned flesh, heroes, intellectual honesty, coherence, ethics, responsibility. Science is not born yesterday, and is not a joke.

This journal has an impact factor. Scientists build their careers by publishing on journals like this. They are acknowledged by societies and by the international scientific community of their peers, as 'scientists'. This has ethical implications, and specific social responsibilities. Where is the responsibility of a scientific journal publishing unscientific, metaphysical hypotheses?

It is indeed tragic. Where is the responsibility of the peer reviewers and the editors?
Is this just advertisement tactics? In this case, I hope that PLOS ONE is ready to pay for this.

I hope that the whole scientific community and the ISI Web of Knowledge will take action on this.

Good luck.

Gianluca Polgar

No competing interests declared.