Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 70:
Line 70: − − == 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." − − Faulty logic on four 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 and reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method. 2) Nobody suggested that [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] repeat the experiments by himself. It is understood that he doesn't have the facilities to do that. What I suggested was that Conservapedia editors try to locate sympathetic scientists who have the resources to run the experiments. These experiments are neither expensive nor difficult to reproduce. It just takes time (a few minutes a day for most of the work) and a lab. 3) If another lab group found that they were unable to reproduce the results despite using the strains provide by Lenski and following the paper's techniques, that would force a serious re-evaluation and likely, a retraction of conclusions made paper. 4) I made no "demand" that the experiments be repeated. I *suggested* that it would be a good idea. I wrote: ''"Now, contrast that to my deleted comment '''suggesting''' that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment."'' − − Given the substantive remarks provided above, will [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] or anyone else acknowledge that rerunning the experiment in an independent lab has legitimate merit?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:19, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 21:08, September 15, 2008
, 21:08, September 15, 2008Reverted edits by Argon (Talk); changed back to last version by BenHur
::: 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)