Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

These secular priests just keep slicing on the drive More

These secular priests just keep slicing on the drive

Comments Filter:

  • Publisher SAGE announced it was retracting 60 papers from 2010–2014 in the Journal of Vibration and Control, which covers acoustics, all connected to Peter Chen of National Pingtung University of Education, Taiwan.

    You will note from the article, that the papers with questionable provenance were retracted in a public way.

    What was the last time there was a retraction of inaccurate or harmful material from the Bible?

    • What was the last time there was a retraction of inaccurate or harmful material from the Bible?

      Most of what you see as inaccurate was intended to be metaphorical, and as far as "harmful"... typical liberal drivel. Anything you don't agree with is "harmful" or "hate speech" or "intolerant".

      Play a new card, that one is as worn out as the race card is.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Arker ( 91948 )
      "What was the last time there was a retraction of inaccurate or harmful material from the Bible?"

      It's actually a good question if refined a bit.

      I would propose to you that what you see as 'inaccurate or harmful material from the Bible' is better defined as 'inaccurate or harmful interpretations of the Bible' and while retractions of those are not unheard of, they are certainly relatively rare.

      I think the deeper point here is simply that the theoretical bright-line between science and religion has a worrying
      • Let's not forget the incorrect retraction of the Bible that removed 6 books. The full Bible has 73 books.

        Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees are all scripture.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Arker ( 91948 )

          That may be a matter of opinion and perspective as well.

          Those are late compositions in Greek and clearly not part of the original Hebrew Bible (properly called the Tanakh [breslov.com].)

          The books you mention, along with the so-called New Testament books, both those declared 'canonical' by the Imperial Roman authorities and the other books that were banned instead, along with the Talmud, are all in my mind defensible and even in cases valuable, as Midrash, as Commentary, as a record of what men at the time thought on so

          • Those books were part of the Bible until the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther removed them from his Bible, and also removed a few other books as well --- James, for example.
            • Typo -- above should read: Martin Luther removed them from his Bible, and also wanted to remove a few other books as well --- James, for example.

              • Typo -- above should read: Martin Luther removed them from his Bible, and also wanted to remove a few other books as well --- James, for example.

                So, you've proven my point. The Journal of Vibration and Control caught some improperly refereed articles and retracted them within four years. A system that works.

                It took a millennium and a half for the reformation to try to straighten out Scripture. Except, with the Journal, it's an open process that is open for the involvement of the scientific community. Wi

                • Swing and a miss, Ratzo.
                  It took a millennium and a half for the reformation to try to straighten out Scripture.
                  The point I made was that Luther incorrectly removed this.

                  So which would you use to inform your life and society? If you said, "The Bible", then even God thinks you're a moron. Because, way before there was scripture, there was man's ability to reason.

                  Read the Gospel; specifically read how Jesus reacted to Thomas' skepticism, and his message about those who haven't seen and still believe.

                  • And the Bible said it was OK to stone adulterers and that you shouldn't eat shellfish or touch your wife while she's menstruating.

                    Read the Gospel;

                    Which one? The ones that the Council of Nicea approved? Or the older ones or the ones Luther approved?

                    See that's the problem with religion: It's made by men and yet is supposed to be above the review of men.

                    • There were three types of law in the old Jewish custom -- ceremonial, civil, and moral. Some things were intended to be guidelines -- for example, pork and shellfish. This is an example of God watching out for His people, as the primary fuel for cooking in the desert was camel chips. Largely undigested grass, camel chips, much like cow chips, are very flammable. The problem is, that they burn very hot, and burn much to hot to reliably "slow" roast pork to a proper internal temperature. Shellfish -- good ide

                    • There were three types of law in the old Jewish custom -- ceremonial, civil, and moral.

                      You are citing the usual legalistic apologia regarding Bible. That the really ridiculous rules didn't apply, because God didn't realize that when he was writing the Bible it would be taken seriously two thousand years later. That certain rules in the books of law (funny word, "law"), aren't really laws because geez, God must have been kidding and anyway, crab meat is good. And we don't stone adulterers because things w

                    • You are citing the usual legalistic

                      Because it's true, and been around for a very long time.

                      There's a whole list of things he didn't say anything about, including homosexuality and abortion and women being subservient and on and on.

                      On that, you are completely wrong.

                      In Matthew 5:17 Jesus is quoted as saying: ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

                      In other words, Jesus himself is saying that he isn't changing the mor

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Arker ( 91948 )
              No, I am sorry but you are wrong. They were certainly not part of the original Bible. They were *added* to some Greek translations of the Scripture, somewhere around 100bc, but no one considered them Canonical until centuries later. We are talking the 4th century AD on the "Christian" side and perhaps a couple of centuries earlier on the Rabbinate side, but in each case it was a multi-generational project to ultimately *add* these books, to elevate the works of men to the status of scripture.

          • both those declared 'canonical' by the Imperial Roman authorities

            So, the Imperial Roman authorities were sort of like the editors of the Journal of Vibration and Control, except they're a lot less likely to admit and correct error.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Arker ( 91948 )
              Sure.

              Which is why I do not in any way defer to their judgements, but make my own.

              "To draw truths from reading for yourself."

              Drawing truths from the book with the longest continuous editorial history known to man, one that warns you it has been tampered with by scribes with lying pens (Jeremiah 8:8) is not an easy thing, it is a puzzle. But our creator gave us rational minds to solve puzzles with.

  • we should just quit privileging these guys

    The case of the 60 papers that your link refers to primarily is a case of a researcher in Taiwan. What is it that you want Taiwan to do to him?

    And the other top case they mention - the South Korean researcher who apparently published nonsense about a way to make stem cells that didn't actually make stem cells - was from South Korea.:

    South Korean researcher Hyung-In Moon, who was caught in 2012 making up fake email addresses to review his own papers. He has had dozens of retractions so far.

    If you read to the end of the link you gave, it even says

    It's also hard to tell whether things are getting worse. True, the number of retractions each year has been on the rise. That could be because of more problems. But it could also be a sign of more thorough policing. Plagiarism-detection and image-detection software, for example, have allowed journal editors to more easily screen for duplication problems. The rise in retractions might also be influenced by the fact that people are publishing more and more papers every year.

    In other words, I would appreciate a clarification of your argument. The privilege bit doesn't parse. If you're trying to suggest that the problem is getting worse for some reason, you haven't supported the notion yet.

  • ...scientist Chen thought his results were fake but accurate?

    And therefore, in his mind, and according to popular thinking, would still be worthy of dissemination. That is, if he felt it was an important enough truth, that needed to be gotten out.

    IOW, in a world where the mindset of "the ends justify the means" has taken over, can he be blamed? If the world tells him that that's nothing to be ashamed about in other cases, why would he and other scientists see it as unethical in science?

    I hold him less cul

    • I suspect the actions were more likely out of the desire for self-preservation. I don't have first-hand experience with the systems in Taiwan or South Korea but I know that in the US many academics live and die by their publication records. I would put money on the parties involved here having done what they did not because they thought their ideas were better than anyone else's, but because they wanted to keep their jobs.

      That doesn't make it right, it just explains a more probable explanation for how

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Close