109
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 260:
Line 260: − + Line 271:
Line 271: + +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 19:55, July 24, 2008
, 19:55, July 24, 2008no edit summary
:::::::::You may say that the scientific community should be doing this already. (We might also question whether the format stipulated by the scientific community really is "correct"). Whether they should or should not is moot: the simple fact is that they aren’t and are unlikely to start anytime soon without a “correctly” prepared objection. Stitch75’s advice is designed to help you prepare the objection “correctly” and, in doing so, aid the search for truth.--[[User:YoungA|YoungA]] 09:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You may say that the scientific community should be doing this already. (We might also question whether the format stipulated by the scientific community really is "correct"). Whether they should or should not is moot: the simple fact is that they aren’t and are unlikely to start anytime soon without a “correctly” prepared objection. Stitch75’s advice is designed to help you prepare the objection “correctly” and, in doing so, aid the search for truth.--[[User:YoungA|YoungA]] 09:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::YoungA, I think we're thinking along the same lines, just using different vocabulary. As you said, reality is what reality is (in that sense of the word "truth"- I changed words to avoid the usual connotation of the vague philosophical ideal, which is itself unproductive). My meaning was the same as yours, referring to "truth" requiring empirical support in the sense that any given claim to it must be backed up by real evidence. But thanks for explaining the situation from a different angle.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 15:55, 24 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)
:Listen Stitch75- Right now, there are some pretty serious flaws in the Lenski study. Conservapedia has identified enough of them to put the entire conclusion in doubt, and even if one of our arguments turns out to be not valid, I am sure that because we raised so many valid points at least part of the paper will need to be reconsidered. You claim to have so much respect for the scientific process and scientific work, but you contradict this because you yourself refuse to allow a piece of scientific work to be legitimately challenged. If you truly believed that the work was infallible, you wouldn't mind us scrutinizing it. Please stop telling us about how to follow a good scientific method, when as you know the most important part is checking your work. We are contributing to the scientific community by revising a conclusion that is fatally flawed. Try to open your mind a bit more.--[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 15:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
:Listen Stitch75- Right now, there are some pretty serious flaws in the Lenski study. Conservapedia has identified enough of them to put the entire conclusion in doubt, and even if one of our arguments turns out to be not valid, I am sure that because we raised so many valid points at least part of the paper will need to be reconsidered. You claim to have so much respect for the scientific process and scientific work, but you contradict this because you yourself refuse to allow a piece of scientific work to be legitimately challenged. If you truly believed that the work was infallible, you wouldn't mind us scrutinizing it. Please stop telling us about how to follow a good scientific method, when as you know the most important part is checking your work. We are contributing to the scientific community by revising a conclusion that is fatally flawed. Try to open your mind a bit more.--[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 15:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
::By using "fatally flawed" in an ''a priori'' fashion, you contradict your own words regarding opening one's mind. Read more carefully- Stitch75 did '''not''' try to keep you from submitting your letter-, but rather tried to help you improve it. It seems you immediately criticize anyone you've decided to disagree with regardless of what they say. As several others here have said, you '''should submit a letter''' but with its current form of poor scholarship and misunderstanding of basic microbiology techniques, it won't be taken seriously. You haven't given it a reason to be. And Stitch75 is right about all the CCs: they serve only to undermine your argument and erode your credibility. Unfortunately, with each revision the letter becomes less and less tactful, thus further reducing the likelihood of it being posted by PNAS. Stitch75 gave that detailed advice because he does have "respect for the scientific process and scientific work"- thus helping you develop your letter in a scientifically acceptable format. Also, if you've already decided that you won't agree with any response other than retraction, there's not much point in the effort because that in itself is not a scientific approach. Through this and already calling it "fatally flawed" before any formal scientific response to those claims, you've already made up your minds. Again, submit a letter, really, but if you want them to take you seriously you should reciprocate in due course and not pass judgment before even sending it.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 15:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
== Expertise in Statistics ==
== Expertise in Statistics ==