If someone tells you to read an article called Deep Adaptation by Jem Bendall - it's crap. It was rejected for publication because it's full of dodgy science, unscientific conclusions, and its reference list is full of news articles rather than scientific papers.

This is the second time I've had to deal with someone recommending this article to me this year, and honestly, it gives me anxiety. I wish the article would die, but that's not how the internet works.

@pelagikat Science publication is at even more of a disadvantage: The bulk of it isn't even on the internet, where we can reliably link to it. Instead it tends to be locked behind some log-in wall, whether fee-based or otherwise.


@pelagikat So when we want to tell someone “here, look at this article which explains more”, even if we want to link to a science publication for that link, the person receiving it probably can't see the article because it's not on the internet.

So most people can only send links to science journalist articles instead of the real science. With all the pros and cons of that.

@bignose I understand the problems with paywalls, but this author is within a university and presumably has access to scientific publications. He's deliberately chosen to base his article on bad science, and is even using his publication rejection as a badge of honour.

Sign in to participate in the conversation is an Australian instance of Mastodon run by @daedalus.