185
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 70:
Line 70: + + + + + + + +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 16:04, September 15, 2008
, 16:04, September 15, 2008→Torrent of nonsense: new section
::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
== Torrent of nonsense ==
[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]suggests: "The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper."
Absurd logic on two counts: 1) It is not a "torrent of nonsense" to independently repeat experiments. That is the basis by which experimental results may be readily confirmed or disproved. 2) Nobody suggested that [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] repeat the experiments by himself. It is well know that he doesn't have the facilities to do that. What I suggested was the Conservapedia try to locate sympathetic scientists who have the resources to run the experiments. These experiments are neither expensive nor difficult to reporduce. IT just takes time and a lab.
Will [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] acknowledge that rerunning the experiment in an independent lab has legitmate merit?