3
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 61:
Line 61: + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
::: Jareddr's description of PNAS policy is incomplete. In fact, PNAS has adopted "UPSIDE", which is the Uniform Principle for Sharing Integral Data and Materials Expeditiously. That standard establishes that the "author's obligation is ... to release data and materials to enable others to verify or replicate published findings," and that the "upside" is that this "keeps science honest." Moreover, PNAS expressly rejects "a requirement that the material be used for research purposes." [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Jareddr's description of PNAS policy is incomplete. In fact, PNAS has adopted "UPSIDE", which is the Uniform Principle for Sharing Integral Data and Materials Expeditiously. That standard establishes that the "author's obligation is ... to release data and materials to enable others to verify or replicate published findings," and that the "upside" is that this "keeps science honest." Moreover, PNAS expressly rejects "a requirement that the material be used for research purposes." [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
(Back on a PC. so I can sign and use the spellcheck)
“The value in public scrutiny is to allow many to review the data”
No one, but you, claims to want to review data that they are unable to get hold of. Your actions suggest that even you do not want to "verify or replicate published findings".
The purpose of my “single hypothesis” is to '''test''' it, not merely to assert that “it's obvious to me that Lenski will not allow public scrutiny”. That, particular, hypothesis has either not been tested or it has been refuted. You asked for data. There was data in the paper. You asked for more data. Hipparchos gave you links to more data, made public by Prof. Lenski. That was too much data: an attempt to “obscure by burying the reader with volumes of meaningless or less meaningful info”. What data do you want? You refuse to specify it in a manner such that the statement “Lenski has not complied” is falsifiable. You have not given the meaning of your request, we are unable to clearly stipulate what your request entails. Thus it is untestable, thus it has not been tested. Under other meanings of “data” that are clear, that data has been made available to you and thus the hypothesis is falsified.
You have issued a challenge. I have accepted that challenge. Once again we can moan all we like about the lack of potential for review of Lenski’s findings. The question now is “do you want these results scrutinized?” If so then, for the price of a pint and a pinch of internet glory, I have undertaken to enable that scrutiny. That scrutiny will not be as good as thousands reviewing the data in detail but, and boy is this a big “but”, it will be better than you have right now and are likely to get by posting entries on the main page of Conservapedia.
Do you want these results scrutinized or not? I could murder a pint right now! --[[User:TonyLloyd|TonyLloyd]] 17:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)