16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 328:
Line 328: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 15:20, August 21, 2011
, 15:20, August 21, 2011→Citations: new section
Now that the distractions are out of the way, I remain curious as to your justification. It seems to me that a thorough reading of the discussion bears out the assertion. Lenski refuses to release raw data and cultures to anyone he doesn't consider qualified. Opinions may vary on whether or not this refusal is justifiable, but the refusal itself is a matter of fact. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:54, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
Now that the distractions are out of the way, I remain curious as to your justification. It seems to me that a thorough reading of the discussion bears out the assertion. Lenski refuses to release raw data and cultures to anyone he doesn't consider qualified. Opinions may vary on whether or not this refusal is justifiable, but the refusal itself is a matter of fact. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:54, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
== Citations ==
Ben,
Could you please clarify why you feel that the citation provided for Lenski's refusal to release his results is insufficient? While he did provide reasons, the fact remains that he did refuse to release the raw data and accompanying cultures to members of the general public. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:01, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
: Hi, Benp. Here's why. In the first citation, Lenski actually said that the data for the primary conclusions are in the paper (which is public), and regarding the secondary conclusions, "We will gladly post those additional data on my website." In fact, further data and details about methods are [http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/06/02/0803151105.DCSupplemental/0803151105SI.pdf here]. He said he wouldn't ship the ''bacteria'' to just anyone, and he quoted a Conservapedia user who said that the bacteria are the real data. Maybe that caused the confusion.
: Regarding the second citation, I thought it was citing a different paper, but now I see that it was citing the Lenski paper. Indeed, as you said in your edit summary, one wouldn't necessarily expect the paper to go over its flaws. So, I was mistaken: no <nowiki>{{failed verification}}</nowiki> there. However, the sentence wording and placement of the citation are extremely misleading: "the following serious flaws are emerging about his work[2]". This suggests recent and continuing publication of scientific papers critical of Lenski's results, and that the cited paper describes the flaws that follow.
: What do you think? Leave the first <nowiki>{{failed verification}}</nowiki> and reword the sentence to avoid the confusion I fell into?
: —[[User:BenKovitz|Ben Kovitz]] 11:20, 21 August 2011 (EDT)