100
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 151:
Line 151: − +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 15:27, September 23, 2008
, 15:27, September 23, 2008→Point 5 Confirmed
::::::::: I've been following this discussion for a while and I have to agree with ASchlafly. It hardly seems fair that he should have to, in his spare time, replicate an experiment done by a professional just to "earn" the right to criticize it. I am unfamiliar with statistics, but if some complicated transform goes against common sense, common sense should prevail. After all, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... [[User:AndyM|AndyM]] 10:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: I've been following this discussion for a while and I have to agree with ASchlafly. It hardly seems fair that he should have to, in his spare time, replicate an experiment done by a professional just to "earn" the right to criticize it. I am unfamiliar with statistics, but if some complicated transform goes against common sense, common sense should prevail. After all, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... [[User:AndyM|AndyM]] 10:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: I hope you're joking. If Andy had any actual training in statistics that gave him some sort of parity with the entirety of PNAS or Lenski, then I might agree with you, but thus far I've seen no evidence that Andy has any understanding of the field whatsoever as it pertains to this discussion. Till I do I'm a fence sitter leaning towards Lenski. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:27, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Maybe the Journal of Nature can be your next letter submission source. ''International Weekly Journal of Science'' -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Maybe the Journal of Nature can be your next letter submission source. ''International Weekly Journal of Science'' -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)