185
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 109:
Line 109: − + + + + + + +
no edit summary
:::::::::In any case, the authors clearly noted the anomaly, admitted that they're not sure why it happened and cited the statistics from the third replay experiment in their paper (The results still trended with the previous experiments). It's up for readers to decide whether their conclusions are reasonable, based on the data the authors have presented. Most likely, future experiments, particularly with whole genome sequencing of the isolated clones, will confirm or deny the paper's conclusions. That's pretty much how science works at the cutting edge. Another method would be for you to find a microbiology lab to request the clones and try reproducing the experiment.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:14, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::In any case, the authors clearly noted the anomaly, admitted that they're not sure why it happened and cited the statistics from the third replay experiment in their paper (The results still trended with the previous experiments). It's up for readers to decide whether their conclusions are reasonable, based on the data the authors have presented. Most likely, future experiments, particularly with whole genome sequencing of the isolated clones, will confirm or deny the paper's conclusions. That's pretty much how science works at the cutting edge. Another method would be for you to find a microbiology lab to request the clones and try reproducing the experiment.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:14, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Argon, making basic errors of logic and statistics and ignoring flaws even after they are pointed out is not "pretty much how science works at the cutting edge," as you put it. It's clear that nothing will persuade you to question this paper. Your herculean efforts to claim that the third and second experiments were so different as to explain their failure to scale is disproved by common sense, logic, and the paper's own statement that these experiments were similar. At this point I suggest that you open your mind for your sake. But you have free will to do as you like, including even insisting that 2+2=5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:35, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Argon, making basic errors of logic and statistics and ignoring flaws even after they are pointed out is not "pretty much how science works at the cutting edge," as you put it. It's clear that nothing will persuade you to question this paper. Your herculean efforts to claim that the third and second experiments were so different as to explain their failure to scale is disproved by common sense, logic, and the paper's own statement that these experiments were similar. At this point I suggest that you open your mind for your sake. But you have free will to do as you like, including even insisting that 2+2=5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:35, 1 August 2008 (ED
::::::::::::Andy, it's no skin off my teeth if future results disconfirm the current hypothesis. I never publicly called Lenski out or asserted that his conduct was unbecoming when I hadn't read the paper fully. I was never 'rebuked' publicly by Lenski. I don't have papers or grants subject to review by Lenski or a relationship anyone in his lab. So no, I don't 'have a dog' in this debate.
::::::::::::Science is tentative at the cutting edge. I do not think for one moment that the paper is the "be all and end all" of all research on the subject or that every detail has been exhaustively investigated. I do question the paper, like all first papers in a research topic, but on the whole, I think the conclusions are *reasonably* supported. In my work with bacteria I have seen very different results from what I initially presumed were relatively insignificant changes. Later later experiments suggested why the experiments were unexpectedly sensitive to those changes. For the Cit+ work from Lenski's lab, I'm pretty confident that later experiments will either more solidly confirm or deny the conclusions of the Blount paper. The best data will come from sequencing work being planned now. But at least for now, I think theirs a reasonable conclusion, given what they've encountered so far. YMMV.
::::::::::::Of course, imagine the better quality dialog you might have had if you'd waited until now to contact Lenski with specific questions based on a thorough reading of paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 14:33, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
:3)The claim that the use of Monte Carlo resampling test was an error is unsupported by argument or counterclaim. ''Why'' is the use of that test an error? Problematically, if the test itself is invalid, why are you willing to accept the p-value for the third replay? Furthermore, the Monte Carlo test was not the test used to combine the three experiments to arrive at the final p-value of p<0.0001 - that was a Z-transformation method. Perhaps your real objection lies with this technique rather than the Monte Carlo test.
:3)The claim that the use of Monte Carlo resampling test was an error is unsupported by argument or counterclaim. ''Why'' is the use of that test an error? Problematically, if the test itself is invalid, why are you willing to accept the p-value for the third replay? Furthermore, the Monte Carlo test was not the test used to combine the three experiments to arrive at the final p-value of p<0.0001 - that was a Z-transformation method. Perhaps your real objection lies with this technique rather than the Monte Carlo test.