Changes

::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::To JPatt I would ask, how do we distinguish between a reply from an expert correcting an error and a reply from “Big Science” covering up the truth?   

:::To JPatt I would ask, how do we distinguish between a reply from an expert correcting an error and a reply from “Big Science” covering up the truth?   

::If you send a good criticism to “Big Science” which they do not like and are willing to cover up you would expect a dismissive reply, as has been received.  However, if you sent a bad criticism to “Big Science” you would also expect a dismissive reply, as has been received.  That a dismissive reply has been received does not distinguish between the two possibilities.  Solely from the reply, therefore, we cannot conclude evidence of a conspiracy on the part of “Big Science” nor can we conclude that the letter was unsound.  We would expect “he is wrong” whether or not Mr. Schlafly was wrong.

:::If you send a good criticism to “Big Science” which they do not like and are willing to cover up you would expect a dismissive reply, as has been received.  However, if you sent a bad criticism to “Big Science” you would also expect a dismissive reply, as has been received.  That a dismissive reply has been received does not distinguish between the two possibilities.  Solely from the reply, therefore, we cannot conclude evidence of a conspiracy on the part of “Big Science” nor can we conclude that the letter was unsound.  We would expect “he is wrong” whether or not Mr. Schlafly was wrong.

::How can we distinguish?  Can we distinguish?  Well, yes.  Firstly the detail of the reply will give clues.  The reply was not “un-responsive”, it gave clear reasons why the letter was not to be published: the objections ignore elementary statistics and the final comment is “uncalled for”.  These are reasons to reject the criticisms.

:::How can we distinguish?  Can we distinguish?  Well, yes.  Firstly the detail of the reply will give clues.  The reply was not “un-responsive”, it gave clear reasons why the letter was not to be published: the objections ignore elementary statistics and the final comment is “uncalled for”.  These are reasons to reject the criticisms.

::Secondly these are reasons that are independently corroborated by the discussion of the various drafts of the letter.  Objections were raised against all the substantive points by editors, many with expertise in the relevant areas; Stitch75, Brossa, Kallium, Argon, Wisdom89, Murray, Gerlach etc.  The majority of the discussion centred around the statistics, as with the majority of the reply from PNAS.  However the author was also specifically warned that the inclusion of accusations of withholding data was inappropriate[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ALetter_to_PNAS&diff=492868&oldid=492769]. Most of these objections were addressed not by reformulating the criticisms to paper but by dismissal, deletion and blocking.  Those few editors writing in support of the criticisms declared no expertise, showed little and, in at least one case, was a parodist [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&diff=prev&oldid=490485]!  

:::Secondly these are reasons that are independently corroborated by the discussion of the various drafts of the letter.  Objections were raised against all the substantive points by editors, many with expertise in the relevant areas; Stitch75, Brossa, Kallium, Argon, Wisdom89, Murray, Gerlach etc.  The majority of the discussion centred around the statistics, as with the majority of the reply from PNAS.  However the author was also specifically warned that the inclusion of accusations of withholding data was inappropriate[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ALetter_to_PNAS&diff=492868&oldid=492769]. Most of these objections were addressed not by reformulating the criticisms to paper but by dismissal, deletion and blocking.  Those few editors writing in support of the criticisms declared no expertise, showed little and, in at least one case, was a parodist [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&diff=prev&oldid=490485]!  

::On the other hand what do we have to support the contention that the letter has good criticisms of the Lenski study?  We have little that goes beyond assertion.

:::On the other hand what do we have to support the contention that the letter has good criticisms of the Lenski study?  We have little that goes beyond assertion.

::It was pretty much known before sending the letter that, although the author had been given every help in formulating the best letter possible, the letter had little merit.  It should not come as a surprise that it was dismissed and, certainly, not taken as evidence that “Big Science” is corrupt.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 07:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::It was pretty much known before sending the letter that, although the author had been given every help in formulating the best letter possible, the letter had little merit.  It should not come as a surprise that it was dismissed and, certainly, not taken as evidence that “Big Science” is corrupt.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 07:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)