Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

4,867 bytes removed, 02:14, 16 September 2008
rmv unsustansive comments
In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 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)
::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:"Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''"(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
(deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: "Substantive comments only, please." If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by "substantive"? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.
:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - "having or expressing substance", but apparently the measure of "substantive" for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. 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.
The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:"The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?
:"The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 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)
:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [ removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is "declining to comment" an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Your comment was not an "indictable offense," but it violated the rules of this page: "Substantive comments only, please." Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::: This is confusing. Is "I agree with your thesis" or "your methods are 100% correct" a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a "Talk Page". Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
== Please provide your statistical analysis ==
Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
: I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)