185
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 4:
Line 4: + Line 47:
Line 48: + +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 22:26, September 14, 2008
, 22:26, September 14, 2008no edit summary
: Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
: Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 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)
::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)
What I'd suggest then, is that the appropriate response is for Aschlafly to defend the statistical analysis he used in identifying his issues, to respond to the PNAS assertion that it was erroneous. To summarize, PNAS didn't dodge a response - their response is that the analysis was flawed. Any response by Aschlafly to that assertion is up to him. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
What I'd suggest then, is that the appropriate response is for Aschlafly to defend the statistical analysis he used in identifying his issues, to respond to the PNAS assertion that it was erroneous. To summarize, PNAS didn't dodge a response - their response is that the analysis was flawed. Any response by Aschlafly to that assertion is up to him. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
That was pretty much the response I expected given what I perceived to be the general lack of receptiveness to information provided by others with more experience in biology in the discussions leading up the letter's creation (clearly, others have differing opinions). Thus it would appear that either biologists as a class are terribly poor at recognizing "the truth" or maybe it's not the biologists who are having the problem. In any case, the strains and cultures described in the paper remain available to other scientists if they choose to reproduce the experiments. In the several months since the "Lenski affair" began, what success have Conservapedia members (at least those interested in the topic) had in locating bacteriology labs sympathetic to Conservapedia's mission to investigate Blount et al.'s work and rerun the experiments. As numerous others have noted, reproduction of experimental results is a gold standard in science. The strains provide the best evidence for or against the conclusions in the paper. I'd humbly suggest that obtaining the help of a friendly lab would provide the most sure and direct means of resolving the issues.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:26, 14 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:26, 14 September 2008 (EDT)