RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (9) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Biological Information: New Perspectives, The Springer Book Flap< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2012,16:16   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,09:09)
They woulda got away with it if they hadn't bragged before publication. Premature jubilation.

I beg to differ: they have kept exceptionally quite about the whole thing, only the (automatically generated?) announcement by Springer derailed their plan.

Look how their modus operandi has changed over the last years: Marks's and Dembski's  paper "Conservation of Information in Search - Measuring the Cost of Success" was available as a preprint on Marks's homepage, it was announced a couple of times at UncommonDescent, and after years of struggle it appeared in some unrelated journal.

This disadvantage is obvious: public criticism. And boy, they didn't like it.

Nowadays, they try to sneak in their articles in a kind of peer-reviewed journal first. Then they will ignore any critique which isn't itself in form of a peer-reviewed paper. And no one bothers to do so, their math is generally debunked some levels below, in  blogs, wikis, etc.

What does this mean if you find an error in their publications? They don't bother! And if you try to correct them via email, you get an answer (if any!)  like  
Quote
I have a policy not to engage in correspondence with anyone publically critical of me or my work.

   
  250 replies since Mar. 05 2012,07:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (9) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]