109
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 249:
Line 249: + + +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 16:12, July 23, 2008
, 16:12, July 23, 2008no edit summary
::::::: You have it backwards, "Kallium". Lenski has the burden of providing "scientific rigor," and his paper falls short. In fact, the data presented in the paper tend to ''disprove'' his hypothesis about a mutation rate, as the mutations identified in his paper do not scale in a meaningful way with sample size.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::: You have it backwards, "Kallium". Lenski has the burden of providing "scientific rigor," and his paper falls short. In fact, the data presented in the paper tend to ''disprove'' his hypothesis about a mutation rate, as the mutations identified in his paper do not scale in a meaningful way with sample size.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: I honestly don't know how to make this any more clear. Yes, Lenski does have the burden of providing scientific rigor, as any scientist does. I never said otherwise. However, to claim flaws in any study requires that they be presented with equal rigor. This is just rewording the last statement of my previous post. Simply making vague, unspecified and unsubstantiated hand-waving claims won't get you anywhere. Consider an analogous situation in an appeals court: someone doesn't like the decision of a lower court, so they go to a higher level to present their objections. Now, to do this requires legal rigor to the same degree with which the decision was originally made. The defendant would need to address specifics in the decision and explain exactly why they were incorrectly interpreted. If, however, that defendant were to waltz into the higher court and simply read quotes from the decision and say "that's illogical" or "those statements are self-contradictory" or "that's unfair", without going into detail to explain their reasoning and without addressing the previous cases cited in the decision or providing any further legal precedents, they would utterly fail to make their case and likely be chastised by the judge for wasting the court's time. Now replace the court references with their respective scientific analogs and you have exactly what is going on here. That is why both Stitch75 and I have been giving you this advice- to ''help you present your case''. Lastly, you haven't developed your arguments since you first posted them but keep relisting them. You have yet to show in detail how the data disprove the hypothesis (which you also vaguely define), and as others have explained repeatedly, mutation rates are only expected to scale with sample size under identical conditions, which were not used. That's why your letter needs improvement- it simply won't be taken seriously if it shows a flawed understanding of basic experimental biology. You can't pass rigor completely off of your shoulders; you have to make your case or it will get thrown out of court.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 12:12, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)