User talk:Argon

Ha well. Looks like actual information about Lenski represents "meaningless clutter" on the Lenski page. Who would have thought it?--British_cons (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

The fact that he was elected into one of the most prestigious scientific organizations appears to matter little. He's just a professor who 'oddly' didn't include the field of his degrees in his 'about me' web page. One can lead a horse to water but one can't make him read the paper.--Argon 17:39, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Forgive me for the edits. --TrueValues 20:55, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Before the block from Lenski/PNAS letter talk page.

Andy, it's no skin off my teeth if future results disconfirm the current hypothesis. I never publicly called Lenski out or asserted that his conduct was unbecoming when I hadn't read the paper fully. I was never 'rebuked' publicly by Lenski. I don't have papers or grants subject to review by Lenski or a relationship anyone in his lab. So no, I don't 'have a dog' in this debate.

Science is tentative at the cutting edge. I do not think for one moment that the paper is the "be all and end all" of all research on the subject or that every detail has been exhaustively investigated. I do question the paper, like all first papers in a research topic, but on the whole, I think the conclusions are *reasonably* supported. In my work with bacteria I have seen very different results from what I initially presumed were relatively insignificant changes. Later later experiments suggested why the experiments were unexpectedly sensitive to those changes. For the Cit+ work from Lenski's lab, I'm pretty confident that later experiments will either more solidly confirm or deny the conclusions of the Blount paper. The best data will come from sequencing work being planned now. But at least for now, I think theirs a reasonable conclusion, given what they've encountered so far. YMMV.

Of course, imagine the better quality dialog you might have had if you'd waited until now to contact Lenski with specific questions based on a thorough reading of paper. In any case, as I mentioned previously (message now gone), if you're convinced of what you've written, by all means please fire off your letter --Argon 14:33, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Being "Substantive"

Well, I guess we can rule out a new Conservapedia challenge - having a qualified expert in experimental statistics defend Aschlafly's statistical issues from the criticisms in the PNAS response. Time to move on, as he said. --DinsdaleP 23:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Thin ice

Hi Argon, I enjoy reading your comments. But I feel I should warn you, not as a threat but for your own sake, to contribute to some articles while you continue the debates. As it stands, you are giving the powers that be every excuse to block you for 90/10. Don't give them such an easy way out. Eoinc 15:45, 15 September 2008 (EDT)