241
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 317:
Line 317: + +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 14:32, September 19, 2008
, 14:32, September 19, 2008no edit summary
::::Read over this talk page. Andy has never directly answered any criticism of his PNAS letter. He either removes the comment from the talk page, bans the user, or just refuses to answer the question. Sometimes all three. Given this and the criticism I've seen on this page from people who seem to know what they are talking about, the only conclusion I can come to is Andy doesn't actually understand why z-transformations are applied, what a Monte Carlo re-sampling test is, etc. If he understood any of this, I would assume he would actually answer their questions. [[User:JohnDee|JohnDee]] 10:20, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Read over this talk page. Andy has never directly answered any criticism of his PNAS letter. He either removes the comment from the talk page, bans the user, or just refuses to answer the question. Sometimes all three. Given this and the criticism I've seen on this page from people who seem to know what they are talking about, the only conclusion I can come to is Andy doesn't actually understand why z-transformations are applied, what a Monte Carlo re-sampling test is, etc. If he understood any of this, I would assume he would actually answer their questions. [[User:JohnDee|JohnDee]] 10:20, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
::::'''''"Are you not making an assumption here"'''''. Spelling mistakes signify little beyond spelling. If you were to consider swimming to the bottom of the Pacific and I said "you won't be able to, you can't breathe underwater" then I would be right. If I were to write "U wont bee able to, yu can't breev undewatta" I would '''''still''''' be right about your ability to swim to the bottom of the Pacific. Woefully wrong about spelling, but spot on about the status of your gills. On the "tone" of the edit I might remind you that PNAS took exception to the "tone" of the letter. ''"Mr. Schlafly's final comment about release of data is uncalled for". '' Professor Lenski certainly took exception to the tone of ''both'' emails to him: ''"(g)iven the '''continued''' rudeness of your second email"'' (my emphasis). And, naturally, it makes little difference to the validity of the criticisms: if I were to say "you *******************, you can't breathe underwater" I would ''still'' be right. So "your spelling is bad" or "you are being rude" simply fail to negate the statement "the letter was wrong". In the abscence of a negation coupled with plenty of corroboration, we a forced to the conclusion that the letter had little merit. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 10:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)