65
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 184:
Line 184: + + + +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 19:13, September 17, 2008
, 19:13, September 17, 2008→Improper
::::::: MikeR, I obviously welcome another unbiased outside opinion. Let us know when you get one. But beware, the [[evolution syndrome]] you've seen here will make anyone think twice before they criticize any aspect of any paper that promotes evolution. Anyone seeking funding or tenure will think twice before daring to question any aspect of an evolution paper, lest they be subjected to the hysteria you've seen here. So I'm not optimistic that you will be able to find anyone willing to attach his name to this dispute. You may have to use your own mind on this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::: MikeR, I obviously welcome another unbiased outside opinion. Let us know when you get one. But beware, the [[evolution syndrome]] you've seen here will make anyone think twice before they criticize any aspect of any paper that promotes evolution. Anyone seeking funding or tenure will think twice before daring to question any aspect of an evolution paper, lest they be subjected to the hysteria you've seen here. So I'm not optimistic that you will be able to find anyone willing to attach his name to this dispute. You may have to use your own mind on this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: I've not seen any "hysteria" here at all Andy. I think it's clear that a number of us are not convinced that you're right. You could persuade us by explaining, specifically, why you believe that the Monte Carlo or Z-transformation approaches were wrong, and what p-values you believe should have been obtained. I think the PNAS letter is somewhat rude, but there's nothing much in it that I disagree with regarding the statistics. I don't see a problem with combining samples of different sizes using a Z-transformation, for example, as it's a technique I use on a regular basis, and what I believe is a pretty standard statistical approach at this level. Indeed, that's why Fisher's Z-transformation technique was invented, to combine samples of different sizes. I'm genuinely interested to know what the issue is with it in this case.
::::::::As a side note, some of these statistical terms might be worth elaborating on in articles here on Conservapedia. I might make that my next project actually, if anyone wants to help. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 15:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Aschlafly, would you accept that your description of PNAS is directly analagous to your own resistance to criticism of an anti-evolution stance? I ask you again - i) are you 100% certain that your analysis is correct, ii) do you believe you are the best person to make that judgement, and iii) would you consider bringing in an unbiased third-party statistician to review your methodology? What could be wrong with that if you are certain you are correct? It could only but strengthen your argument. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 13:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Aschlafly, would you accept that your description of PNAS is directly analagous to your own resistance to criticism of an anti-evolution stance? I ask you again - i) are you 100% certain that your analysis is correct, ii) do you believe you are the best person to make that judgement, and iii) would you consider bringing in an unbiased third-party statistician to review your methodology? What could be wrong with that if you are certain you are correct? It could only but strengthen your argument. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 13:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)