To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1024790 ) 7/16/2017 1:27:02 AM From: i-node Read Replies (1) | Respond to Has nothing to do with being a "denier". ncbi.nlm.nih.gov nature.com insidehighered.com "The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial." . . . "We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change." http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/ You really have to understand that peer review contributes little or nothing to credibility of science. Or in my former profession, it contributed nothing to the credibility of the Certified Public Accountant business. And in my current field, practical computer science, it contributes less than nothing. http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414 Now, please tell me how peer review helps in any way.
