21
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 162:
Line 162: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 175:
Line 191: + +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 00:39, November 1, 2008
, 00:39, November 1, 2008Point 5 is still refuted
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)
==Point 5 Rejected==
ASchlafly and others: if you don't agree with me, present a reasoned argument against my points. Don't delete other people's comments on a Talk page and for goodness sake, don't be so spineless as to block me to prevent me from replying to you. I repeat what I wrote last week before you deleted my contribution to this discussion and blocked me.
I ''do'' have specialist knowledge of this area, despite Bugler's assertions to the contrary (made without any evidence whatsoever, may I say). But I repeat, it really doesn't matter whether I have particular qualifications or not. In science, what matters is what is said, not who says it. The most outstanding scientific discoveries of the 20th century were made by a patent clerk who had no academic position at the time.
I now repeat again my cut-and-paste from Longstop's contribution a couple of weeks ago. If you don't agree with it, discuss it, don't delete it.
"The main point he [Kennymac] makes is quite correct, that combining experiments will tend to give a more significant result (i.e. a lower P-value) than any single experiment on its own.
"The point that ASchlafly makes (headed '''REPLY''', shortly after KennyMac's example) is slightly misleading. You don't choose which experiments to combine on the basis of their outcomes - you either combine all relevant experiments or none. In this case, Professor Lenski chose to combine all the experiments and present a single analysis of them. That's fine.
"The issue of whether to weight the Z-test according to sample size is not a straightforward issue. Before Whitlock's recent paper, the consensus was that the P-value already depends on sample size so it should not be weighted according to sample size. (Basically, a high degree of significance, i.e. a low P-value, can be achieved by having either a large difference between the treatments or a large experiment or, of course, both.) Whitlock's work, based on computer simulations, is an interesting contribution but cannot be regarded as the last word on the subject because any computer simulation involves assumptions about the structure of the particular experiment simulated. I cannot imagine any editor of a scientific journal rejecting a paper because it used an unweighted Z-test rather than the weighted version (or vice-versa).
"The conclusion, therefore, is that while there is a quantitative difference in the level of significance obtained by weighted and unweighted Z-tests, there is undeniably a significant biological effect. ASchlafly and other contributors should not be concerned that there is anything incorrect about the biological conclusions of Professor Lenski and his students or that there was anything at all underhand about their analysis or presentation of their data." [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 20:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
==Referring of Scientific Papers==
Another point that Aschlafly and others deleted was my explanation of why CP readers shouldn't be concerned about the fact that the Lenski paper was reviewed within 14 days. This is perfectly normal practice for a leading journal. If you're invited to review a paper for a leading journal and they give you 7/10/14/etc days, you only agree to review it if you're sure you're going to have time before the journal's deadline. So there's absolutely no reason to suppose the review wasn't done properly.
Again, if you disagree, discuss, don't delete and don't block. [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 20:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
== References ==
== References ==
: We exposed five fundamental flaws in the study, and told the truth. The truth doesn't care whether some refuse to accept it. There will ''always'' be people who deny the truth, particularly when they stand to profit from falsehoods. For now, I've moved onto more pressing issues on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
: We exposed five fundamental flaws in the study, and told the truth. The truth doesn't care whether some refuse to accept it. There will ''always'' be people who deny the truth, particularly when they stand to profit from falsehoods. For now, I've moved onto more pressing issues on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:: What do you mean by "profit from falsehoods"? Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who has a different point of view from your own must have mercenary motives for disagreeing with you? That's a very bizarre point of view. [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 20:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)