109
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 282:
Line 282: + +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 13:52, July 25, 2008
, 13:52, July 25, 2008no edit summary
:::: You resort to insults when you lack substance. One need not propose an alternative, or a solution, in order to identify a flaw. One may announce that a bridge is defective and should be closed prior to figuring out how it can be fixed, if indeed it can be fixed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: You resort to insults when you lack substance. One need not propose an alternative, or a solution, in order to identify a flaw. One may announce that a bridge is defective and should be closed prior to figuring out how it can be fixed, if indeed it can be fixed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
::::: I agree that you don't really need to use an alternative statistical test ''per se'' to identify an alleged flaw. However, you do need to meet statistics with statistics and use the method that was used in the paper (the Monte Carlo algorithms, preferably with the same software) to show quantitatively where the error was made and what you think the result should have been. The reason I suggest discussing your result is that in most correspondence of this nature in scientific journals, the discussion is usually something like "Well, the authors calculated this result, but we recalculated and got something different. This is why we think that happened." So while I don't think you need to propose an alternative technique, you should discuss what the result should have been (using the data in Table 1) as that is the standard approach to such concerns. To borrow from your analogy, you don't need to figure out how the bridge can be fixed before announcing it is defective, as you said, but announcing defectiveness isn't enough to close it- you must ''show'' that it is. Hope that helps.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:52, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
:: Dear RoyS, my mind is open enough and I listened long enough, and I would appreciate if you would contribute to the discussion instead of accusing me of beeing closed-minded and acting as if we sat in the pub. If the flaws are so obvious, please present your calculations. Lenski presented his, So unless you show that, using a specific method of calculation, you get other numbers, there is not much of an argument. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:27, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
:: Dear RoyS, my mind is open enough and I listened long enough, and I would appreciate if you would contribute to the discussion instead of accusing me of beeing closed-minded and acting as if we sat in the pub. If the flaws are so obvious, please present your calculations. Lenski presented his, So unless you show that, using a specific method of calculation, you get other numbers, there is not much of an argument. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:27, 24 July 2008 (EDT)