{"id":29558,"date":"2016-03-03T10:28:27","date_gmt":"2016-03-03T09:28:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it\/?p=29558"},"modified":"2021-12-06T19:10:35","modified_gmt":"2021-12-06T18:10:35","slug":"la-mano-del-creatore","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/2016\/03\/03\/la-mano-del-creatore\/","title":{"rendered":"La mano del Creatore"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\nDa\u00a0<\/span>Retraction Watch<\/a><\/strong> si discute l<\/span>‘articolo<\/strong><\/a> di \u00a0<\/span>Ming-Jin Liu,<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>Cai-Hua Xiong<\/a><\/strong>,\u00a0<\/a>Le Xiong e\u00a0<\/a>Xiao-Lin Huang, dell’universit\u00e0 di\u00a0Huazhong,\u00a0su <\/span>PLoS One:<\/em> “Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activties of Daily Living”, che per editor ha avuto <\/span>Renzhi Han<\/a> dell’Ohio State University Medical. Center.<\/span><\/p>\n

L’esperimento con 30 volontari che usano il CyberGlove<\/a> \u00e8 il minimo della vita, i dati sono sbagliati come conferma perfino il primo autore<\/a><\/strong>, la descrizione delle caratteristiche biomeccaniche sembra copiata dai testi in bibliografia, ma quello che ha scatenato i commenti<\/a><\/strong> sotto il paper \u00e8 il creazionismo, dichiarato gi\u00e0 dall’abstract:<\/p>\n

The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.<\/em><\/p>\n

Prosegue, dopo opinioni azzardate su altri primati:<\/p>\n

Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator\u2019s invention. <\/em>(…) \u00a0<\/em>In conclusion, our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years.<\/em><\/p>\n

A quasi un mese dalla pubblicazione, esce la notifica <\/a><\/strong>di un anonimo “PLoS staff”<\/p>\n

A number of readers have concerns about sentences in the article that make references to a ‘Creator’. The PLOS ONE editors apologize that this language was not addressed internally or by the Academic Editor during the evaluation of the manuscript. We are looking into the concerns raised about the article with priority and will take steps to correct the published record.<\/em><\/p>\n

Parte un altro giro di commenti. FTW<\/a>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The article is ok, but is missing an important reference: this one<\/a><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n

La peer-review sar\u00e0 stata inesistente, pagata o compiacente, ma viene anche da chiedersi cosa intendono per “scienza e tecnologia” in certe universit\u00e0 cinesi.
\nAggiorn.<\/strong> Il paper \u00e8 stato ritrattato<\/a><\/strong> dalla rivista (h\/t Stefano)<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

\"\"Delle 1.600 persone che hanno seguito il link al\u00a0video sublime<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0in cui\u00a0<\/strong>Bob G. del Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project esprime a lungo poche idee confuse sul Ni-62, quante compreranno<\/p>\n