"Gay conversations" science paper was fabricated; retracted from Science journal

DerekJohnson said:

A widely-celebrated study that claimed people opposed to gay marriage could be almost instantly "converted" by sharing a conversation with a gay person turns out to have been utterly fabricated.

The university researchers just made it all up and got it published in the peer-reviewed journal Science.

This demonstrates not only how dishonest many of today's scientists are, but also how easily prestigious science journals can be tricked with BAD science:

Hi There. Actually, the Journal Science is what's known as a peer review journal, meaning that it encourages peers to review the scientific submission of others. When peers attempted to build on the study described in the article, some issues with the original data surfaced, which led to one of the co authors to seek a retraction of the article, until those data issues can be addressed. In other words, the peer review nature of the journal, worked as intended. The scientific community wasn't tricked, as you suggest. Perhaps your favorite media outlet was tricked, can't really say.

Please let us know, when any of the scientists you support, in the fields of creation science, or anti global warming science, as examples, submit their studies to peer review journals. Thank you.

OZONE said:

DerekJohnson said:

A widely-celebrated study that claimed people opposed to gay marriage could be almost instantly "converted" by sharing a conversation with a gay person turns out to have been utterly fabricated.

The university researchers just made it all up and got it published in the peer-reviewed journal Science.

This demonstrates not only how dishonest many of today's scientists are, but also how easily prestigious science journals can be tricked with BAD science:

Hi There. Actually, the Journal Science is what's known as a peer review journal, meaning that it encourages peers to review the scientific submission of others. When peers attempted to build on the study described in the article, some issues with the original data surfaced, which led to one of the co authors to seek a retraction of the article, until those data issues can be addressed. In other words, the peer review nature of the journal, worked as intended. The scientific community wasn't tricked, as you suggest. Perhaps your favorite media outlet was tricked, can't really say.

Please let us know, when any of the scientists you support, in the fields of creation science, or anti global warming science, as examples, submit their studies to peer review journals. Thank you.

Sounds like a few people around here need a refresher on the scientific method.

CHRIST.

PurpleJ said:

Hardcore Husky: Your most trusted source of gay conversation science.

Like I said, so many faggots in here. Happy Harvey Milk Day, PJ.

OZONE said:

d2d said:

PurpleJ said:

Hardcore Husky: Your most trusted source of gay conversation science.

Like I said, so many faggots in here. Happy Harvey Milk Day, PJ.

It's interesting that some bigots conclude that only gay people, support gay rights. And these bigots like to use hate speech to support their bigot cause.

I've said it before d2d. You really should seek out professional mental help. As a pretend attorney, I'm guessing you can afford it? If not, maybe you can find one that accepts pretend money.

You sound like you're experienced. I'm sure you were helped immensely by the Scarlet & Gay Society.

link: The Ohio State University Scarlet and Gay Alumni Society

d2d said:

Derek, it's a bit later for the poasers in this thread. They all headed to Neighbours.

Neighbors serves strong drinks.

d2d said:

Neighbors serves strong drinks.

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

D2D is in 2nd grade.

d2d said:

Whooosh