The basic methodology of science as an idealized process is well established and easy to present: Observation leads to a testable hypothesis; controlled experiments lead to a theory, which if confirmed repeatedly becomes a law. However, this simple formula for the determination of scientific knowledge is occasionally marred by the fact that scientists are humanly imperfect. Errors occasionally crop up in the literature, and unlike the scientific process itself, which is so clearly structured, the process of correcting errors is a casual enterprise at best and an exercise in futility at worst.When a published error is discovered, the first step the discoverer can take is to notify the author of the work that a mistake has been made. The author then has the option of correcting the error but is under no professional obligation to do so. I found this out myself the hard way when trying to correct an assertion made by Dr. Thomas O. Blank (University of Connecticut), a book reviewer, that a central idea in my study, Understanding Stupidity, could be found somewhere other than in the book (Blank, 1994). He refused even to answer two written requests that he document his allegation, and when the dean of his faculty finally induced him to respond, he found he could not document his claim, so he sent me a useless reading list on an ersatz topic instead.If the error is not corrected by the author, the matter may be presented to the editor of the journal in which it appeared, but once again, correction is a voluntary matter. In my case, I contacted Dr. John Harvey, editor of Contemporary Psychology, a journal of reviews published by the American Psychological Association (APA), in an effort to enlist his support in obtaining a valid reference for Dr. Blank's remark or correction thereof. Unfortunately, Dr. Harvey would do nothing to resolve the matter-neither ask Dr. Blank to document his claim nor even explain why he would not ask.Likewise, after Professors J. L. Jinks and David W. Fulker published a paper in the APA's Psychological Bulletin (1970) on the nature and nurture of IQ, an attempt by Atam Vetta of Oxford to correct an algebraic error therein was rejected by editor R. J. Herrnstein. In 1984, an attempt by Professor Peter Schonemann of Purdue University to correct another error of analysis and misinterpretation in the same paper was also rejected by Bulletin editor John Masters (Hirsch, 1990).In the emotion laden field of the nature/nurture of intelligence, editors refused to published a substantiated claim that Professor A. R. Jensen had built into his own analysis the very correlation between g loading and black-white differences that he purported to discover (Schonemann, 1985). In fact, in their effort to shield Professor Jensen from valid criticism, they went so far as to falsely claim Professor Schonemann had withdrawn his argument when challenged (Hirsch, 1997).In the field of animal navigation, Professors Archie Carr and Dr. P. J. Coleman published a claim in Nature (1974) that Professor Carr knew was false. A critical note pointing this out from Ted Gerrard was rejected; the rationales/rationalizations being the lack of space and the need to report something positive. In 1981, a new editor, John Maddox, declined to review the matter, claiming that those in the field must surely be aware of the paper's faults despite evidence sent to him that clearly showed that, au contraire, the false claim had become widely established as fact.Nor would Nature correct the discrepancies between two papers in the same issue reporting on the same experimental results differently. In this case the data were drawn from tests made on avian navigation. In the first paper, W. J. Sutherland (1992) stated on five separate occasions the birds (Sylvia atricapilla) in an Emlen test apparatus oriented to the northwest. The second, by P. Berthold, reported the direction to be to the west. When the matter was called to the attention of executive editor Maxine Clarke, she claimed the Sutherland paper was based on a preliminary piece of work, and that later data led to the results presented by Professor Berthold. …