Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Sociologists study the impact religion has on child development [View all]Major Nikon
(36,899 posts)47. You can reference the full study
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/1/37/pdf
The first clue something might be junk science is consideration of where it's published. The publisher is a well known purveyor of junk science. This indicates their "peer-review" process is almost certainly complete shit.
One of the co-authors has the same unusual last name, so they are almost certainly related. The 3rd co-author is one of the principal author's co-workers.
The next thing you'll notice is the author is primarily referencing his own work, which is another red flag for junk science. Some of it is just books he wrote, which unlike the rest doesn't even pretend to be peer-reviewed.
If you look at the other sources referenced in the study, pretty much the only ones who have any degree of legitimacy were those used to point out the negative outcomes of religious indoctrination.
The first clue something might be junk science is consideration of where it's published. The publisher is a well known purveyor of junk science. This indicates their "peer-review" process is almost certainly complete shit.
One of the co-authors has the same unusual last name, so they are almost certainly related. The 3rd co-author is one of the principal author's co-workers.
The next thing you'll notice is the author is primarily referencing his own work, which is another red flag for junk science. Some of it is just books he wrote, which unlike the rest doesn't even pretend to be peer-reviewed.
If you look at the other sources referenced in the study, pretty much the only ones who have any degree of legitimacy were those used to point out the negative outcomes of religious indoctrination.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
57 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
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
So you think this somehow magically changes the negative outcomes mentioned to positive ones?
Major Nikon
Feb 2019
#29
WTF is anything you're saying have to do with what anyone else is talking about?
Major Nikon
Feb 2019
#34
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
Damn dude, you really gotta learn the first rule when you find yourself in a hole.
trotsky
Feb 2019
#45