nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 45:
Line 45: + + + + + + +
→Human appendix: Okay, let's look at the evidence.
I'm talking about actual hard data. What I meant was that if you cite a POV source such as the Journal of Creation, then you have to make sure that their NPOV references actually verify their arguments. None of the peer-reviewed papers (the only ones that really matter) cited in those articles are even accessible. It is therefore impossible to check if they actually agree with the statements attributed to them. Using medline, pubmed, and thomson ISI I was unable to even get an abstract from any of them. This is highly unusual as those sources usually have any article I am trying to find. Also, just because one source draws that conclusion does not meant that it is irrefutable. If there is conflicting evidence on a topic it is inappropriate to make a definitive statement in an encyclopedia such as "The human appendix has a role in early development." It is fine to cite summary pages like you have done because it makes it easier for the reader to learn more about the topic, but please check the veracity of them before you do so. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 07:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm talking about actual hard data. What I meant was that if you cite a POV source such as the Journal of Creation, then you have to make sure that their NPOV references actually verify their arguments. None of the peer-reviewed papers (the only ones that really matter) cited in those articles are even accessible. It is therefore impossible to check if they actually agree with the statements attributed to them. Using medline, pubmed, and thomson ISI I was unable to even get an abstract from any of them. This is highly unusual as those sources usually have any article I am trying to find. Also, just because one source draws that conclusion does not meant that it is irrefutable. If there is conflicting evidence on a topic it is inappropriate to make a definitive statement in an encyclopedia such as "The human appendix has a role in early development." It is fine to cite summary pages like you have done because it makes it easier for the reader to learn more about the topic, but please check the veracity of them before you do so. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 07:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:This sounds very much like a case of demanding a higher standard than you would normally expect of yourself.
:The Journal of Creation is no more POV than other sources, most of which presume an evolutionary worldview.
:Your Talk.Origins source spends very little of it's page actually discussing whether or not the appendix has a use. The bits that do have the following references:
:* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11522758&dopt=Abstract Judge and Lichtenstein 2001]: The link provides no summary, but the title suggests that it ''does'': "Is the appendix a vestigial organ? '''Its role''' in ulcerative colitis." (my emphasis)
:* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10906392&dopt=Abstract Dasso et al. 2000]: The linked summary includes, "If the human appendix functions as a primary lymphoid organ, it may occur during the first few months of age when the GC T-cell density is low". That indicates that they didn't find a use in the areas they looked, not that there is no evidence at all, as Talk.Origins claims.
:Apart from an older reference that predates some of the Journal of Creation's sources, that seems to be it. That's hardly a convincing argument that there is no certain evidence in the face of unequivocal claims that there is evidence. And surely sources that know of evidence trump those that don't know of evidence?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:31, 30 May 2007 (EDT)