Hell, no, I just put mice in a swimming pool.Originally Posted by doc_bean
This paper was published in the third most important scientific journal in the world. I assume that it had a variety of reviewers from different fields. The general claim that peer-reviews aren't very good isn't enough basis not to do so.
What is it, because he is a psychologist, he may not even mention a hypothesis invented by an expert for sexuology? Yes, this kind of research is interdisciplinary, that's why he refers to the work of other scientists.
He didn't check for hormones because that wasn't the subject of his study. It is however false to say that he didn't check biological evidence. He referred to several earlier studies that did present biological evidence. And at the last, putting forth speculation is an integral part of any scientific work.It's still totally different from what this guy did, he never checked biological data, apart from the amount of sons. If he had checked the mothers blood/placenta/whatever for a certain hormone or certain anti bodies and linked them to the child becoming gay he might have had a case, now all he puts forth is speculation.
Bookmarks