Changes

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

 

I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.

I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.

:This is it.  This one is my favorite post.  Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]^{[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]} 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:This is it.  This one is my favorite post.  Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]^{[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]} 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

 

 

 

 

 

[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

 

::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area.

 

I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

 

In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again.  You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.

 

In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data.  (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.)  SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review.  Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review.  Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them.  Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)