Joined: May 2008
|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
|I have a policy not to engage in correspondence with anyone publically critical of me or my work. |