Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Correction

Correction: Experiential Thinking in Creationism—A Textual Analysis

  • The PLOS ONE Staff

Fig. 1 is incorrectly missing asterisks denoting statistical significance. The authors have provided a corrected version of Fig. 1 here.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Prevalences (%) of selected aspects of experiential thinking in the sampled material representing young-earth creationism (YEC; n = 29), intelligent design/old-earth creationism (ID/OEC; n = 8) and pro-evolutionary texts (EVO; n = 15).

“Testimonials” include personal testimonies, quotes, appeals to authorities, etc. “Confirmation bias” represents ignoring or dismissing contradictory data and alternative hypotheses. “Pseudodiagnostics” entails giving high relevance to misinterpreted or irrelevant issues. “Stereotyping” includes dichotomies and generalizations and “moral issues” refer to scientifically irrelevant discussion of moral implications to prove or disprove a claim. * = Difference between the text types (χ2-test, Fisher’s exact test, p < 0.001).n/old-earth creationism (ID/OEC; n = 8) and pro-evolutionary texts (EVO; n = 15).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123488.g001

Reference

  1. 1. Nieminen P, Ryökäs E, Mustonen A-M (2015) Experiential Thinking in Creationism—A Textual Analysis. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0118314. pmid:25734650

Citation: The PLOS ONE Staff (2015) Correction: Experiential Thinking in Creationism—A Textual Analysis. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0123488. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123488

Published: April 1, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 The PLOS ONE Staff. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited