Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

The researcher, whose personal "pro-choice" bias was shaken by the study, went to four journals before he could find one who would publish it

Seems that peer review is kind of broken, eh?
If your study doesn't show what the scientific community wants to support, it can be very difficult to get published. Science as it is today is unfortunately not without bias. It should thus be questioned.

That's quite a leap.  Do you know how hard it is to get published for ANYTHING ?

But, nah, lets just paint ALL of science with that brush.

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

The researcher, whose personal "pro-choice" bias was shaken by the study, went to four journals before he could find one who would publish it

Seems that peer review is kind of broken, eh?
If your study doesn't show what the scientific community wants to support, it can be very difficult to get published. Science as it is today is unfortunately not without bias. It should thus be questioned.

That's quite a leap.  Do you know how hard it is to get published for ANYTHING ?

But, nah, lets just paint ALL of science with that brush.

You are quite naive if you think there isn't a bias.
There certainly is - and it goes against one of the fundamental principles of science.

Not saying that all science is bad, nothing about painting anything with a brush - just pointing out that some valid science is kept out of journals or has an extremely difficult time getting into journals due to the nature of the result rather than the quality of the study. And that's a problem.

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

Seems that peer review is kind of broken, eh?
If your study doesn't show what the scientific community wants to support, it can be very difficult to get published. Science as it is today is unfortunately not without bias. It should thus be questioned.

That's quite a leap.  Do you know how hard it is to get published for ANYTHING ?

But, nah, lets just paint ALL of science with that brush.

You are quite naive if you think there isn't a bias.
There certainly is - and it goes against one of the fundamental principles of science.

Not saying that all science is bad, nothing about painting anything with a brush - just pointing out that some valid science is kept out of journals or has an extremely difficult time getting into journals due to the nature of the result rather than the quality of the study. And that's a problem.

I just did a search on EBSCO and there are several articles that discuss abortion and grief. If there is some bias trying to keep research on emotional affects of abortion out of the mainstream, they're doing a pretty terrible job. There are other journal search engines I could use that would likely turn up even more studies on the issue.

On this issue at least, the bias is not anywhere near as bad as you want to make it out to be. I'm sure though that thinkingchristian.com is framing the issue objectively so as not to mislead or deceive any of its readers on the actual state of things.

Yeah, I've heard plenty of reports in the media about the grief effects of abortion. If it's something that they're trying to keep under wraps, someone at the great liberal media conspiracy meetings must have missed the memo.

Yes, abortions cause depression in women. Successful pregnancies do too.

bratboy wrote:

I won't believe it until I see a government report.

Tee hee!