Religion

MineralMan

(148,028 posts)

52. A word or two about scienceddaily.com from Wikipedia:

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 03:32 PM

Feb 2019

Science Daily is an American website that aggregates press releases and publishes lightly edited press releases (a practice called churnalism) about science, similar to Phys.org and EurekAlert!.[1][2][3]

The site was founded by married couple Dan and Michele Hogan in 1995; Dan Hogan formerly worked in the public affairs department of Jackson Laboratory writing press releases.[4] The site makes money from selling advertisements.[4] As of 2010, the site said that it had grown "from a two-person operation to a full-fledged news business with worldwide contributors" but at the time, it was run out of the Hogans' home, had no reporters, and only reprinted press releases.[4] In 2012, Quantcast ranked it at 614 with 2.6 million U.S. visitors.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceDaily

Unlike publications such as Nature, Scientific American and other magazines that publish articles based on genuine research, Science Daily publishes press releases from all sorts of journals about the articles in them. It does not discriminate between legitimate and "pay-to-publish" journals, nor does it select source journals of proven value.

It is not a reliable source for reliable research information.

The identical article/press release also appears as a link on religionnews.com:

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

57 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sociologists study the impact religion has on child development [View all] guillaumeb Feb 2019 OP

I'd say it's more than religion. no_hypocrisy Feb 2019 #1

Good points. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #3

Which suggests the Bible is never very clear Bretton Garcia Feb 2019 #9

It suggests that people claim many reasons guillaumeb Feb 2019 #20

Wrong again. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #2

Argue with the authors. eom guillaumeb Feb 2019 #4

No doubt someone else already is. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #6

Guess. MineralMan Feb 2019 #8

Did you read the article? guillaumeb Feb 2019 #17

Glad you asked Major Nikon Feb 2019 #38

Busted! Cartoonist Feb 2019 #42

But...but...but... trotsky Feb 2019 #44

Even then only the part he likes Major Nikon Feb 2019 #46

Question: Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #43

You can reference the full study Major Nikon Feb 2019 #47

It all leads back to the same point. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #48

It's a pay-to-play journal Major Nikon Feb 2019 #49

Damn, even by gil's standards this has been a spectacular wreck of a thread. trotsky Feb 2019 #50

The study only counted a very vague Religious data point Lordquinton Feb 2019 #5

It also assumes Third Grade teachers are qualified to evaluate childhood development. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #7

It did suggest some intellectual failures in some religious students though Bretton Garcia Feb 2019 #10

It's not even all that interesting Major Nikon Feb 2019 #12

We might consider this study as say, an anecdote Bretton Garcia Feb 2019 #57

Shit study published in a shit journal Major Nikon Feb 2019 #11

Thanks for that information. MineralMan Feb 2019 #13

... Major Nikon Feb 2019 #14

Perhaps so. MineralMan Feb 2019 #15

Neither is belief peserverance. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #19

It does say that Major Nikon Feb 2019 #23

Were you reading between the lines? guillaumeb Feb 2019 #25

Did you even read the 3rd paragraph in your own excerpt? Major Nikon Feb 2019 #26

Dod you read all the ay down? guillaumeb Feb 2019 #27

So you think this somehow magically changes the negative outcomes mentioned to positive ones? Major Nikon Feb 2019 #29

There are questions about whether religion is a net positive or a negitive. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #32

WTF is anything you're saying have to do with what anyone else is talking about? Major Nikon Feb 2019 #34

And the 50/50 reproducibilty factor, to which you attached so much weight? guillaumeb Feb 2019 #35

Focus Major Nikon Feb 2019 #37

So we should atke all articles referenced here dealing with decining numbers of theists guillaumeb Feb 2019 #18

I'm not sure how many here are too stupid to figure out the difference between a study and a survey Major Nikon Feb 2019 #22

Reference some data to make your points. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #24

I think you make my point quite well Major Nikon Feb 2019 #28

So you have no evidence, only assertions. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #30

Focus Major Nikon Feb 2019 #31

So do you reject this study because, in a 50/50 possibility framework, guillaumeb Feb 2019 #33

No Major Nikon Feb 2019 #36

Damn dude, you really gotta learn the first rule when you find yourself in a hole. trotsky Feb 2019 #45

Here's the thing about junk "scientific" journals: MineralMan Feb 2019 #51

The headline right below your post. Voltaire2 Feb 2019 #16

Focus. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #21

On the effects organized religion has on children? Voltaire2 Feb 2019 #40

Sounds like someone doesn't want to talk about the negative impacts Major Nikon Feb 2019 #39

It always is. nt littlemissmartypants Feb 2019 #41

Similar to when some here complain when I post about China? guillaumeb Feb 2019 #53

... Major Nikon Feb 2019 #54

Unless you deny what has happened in the China posts, guillaumeb Feb 2019 #55

... Major Nikon Feb 2019 #56

A word or two about scienceddaily.com from Wikipedia: MineralMan Feb 2019 #52