241
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 67:
Line 67: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
::::::: You write, "but apparently, the conditions were not effectively the same." That's known as circular reasoning. You can't accept that the mutations do not scale, and so you insist that somehow the conditions "apparently" must have been significantly different. Under your approach, you'd insist there must have been a significant difference in the experiments no matter what the evidence is or what the paper says (it says they were similar).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::: You write, "but apparently, the conditions were not effectively the same." That's known as circular reasoning. You can't accept that the mutations do not scale, and so you insist that somehow the conditions "apparently" must have been significantly different. Under your approach, you'd insist there must have been a significant difference in the experiments no matter what the evidence is or what the paper says (it says they were similar).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::::At a basic level Argon’s argument is not circular. Any appearance of circularity arises from ambiguous wording in the last clause in his statement.
::::::::We have three propositions:
::::::::1. If the conditions were the same the same then the results would be the same (“if C then R”)
::::::::2. The results were not the same (“R”)
::::::::3. The conditions were the same (“C”)
::::::::These three premises are inconsistent. That being so, you can set any two of three as the premises and negate the third as the conclusion. The second proposition is not an issue: all are agreed that the results were not the same (did not scale). So the question is do we accept the first proposition and reject the third or do we accept the third and reject the first? That is to say do we argue:
::::::::'''First argument:'''
::::::::C
::::::::Not-R
::::::::Conclusion: Not-if C then R
::::::::Or do we argue:
::::::::'''Second argument'''
::::::::If C then R
::::::::Not R
::::::::Conclusion: Not-C
::::::::Neither argument is circular (does not have its conclusion as part of its premises). The choice between them may be arbitrary but what we have is a lack of corroboration of the disputed premises (“If C then R” and “C”).
::::::::Except that we do have alternative corroboration for the conclusion of the second argument and the negation of a premise in the first argument: “Not-C” is specifically stated in the paper, necessitating rejection of the first argument.
::::::::If you reject the first argument on the basis of the second argument then it would be circular (you conclude “Not-C”, thus you reject the first argument, thus you adopt the second, thus you conclude “Not-C”, which is where you started from). Whether Argon has done that depends on what “apparently” refers to. If it refers to the paper saying it was not the same then it isn’t circular. The argument is
::::::::the paper says “Not-C”,
::::::::thus you reject the first argument,
::::::::thus you adopt the second,
::::::::thus you conclude “Not-C”
::::::::“Not-C” does not support “the paper says “Not-C”” and the circularity is broken.
:3)The claim that the use of Monte Carlo resampling test was an error is unsupported by argument or counterclaim. ''Why'' is the use of that test an error? Problematically, if the test itself is invalid, why are you willing to accept the p-value for the third replay? Furthermore, the Monte Carlo test was not the test used to combine the three experiments to arrive at the final p-value of p<0.0001 - that was a Z-transformation method. Perhaps your real objection lies with this technique rather than the Monte Carlo test.
:3)The claim that the use of Monte Carlo resampling test was an error is unsupported by argument or counterclaim. ''Why'' is the use of that test an error? Problematically, if the test itself is invalid, why are you willing to accept the p-value for the third replay? Furthermore, the Monte Carlo test was not the test used to combine the three experiments to arrive at the final p-value of p<0.0001 - that was a Z-transformation method. Perhaps your real objection lies with this technique rather than the Monte Carlo test.