1,516
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: + + + + + + + +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 15:39, September 14, 2008
, 15:39, September 14, 2008no edit summary
::::Toffeeman's comment seemed to me to be substantive in any sense you could name. In what way was it a 'misrepresentation'? [[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 10:13, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Toffeeman's comment seemed to me to be substantive in any sense you could name. In what way was it a 'misrepresentation'? [[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 10:13, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
(unindent)
Okay, let's get back to basic, substantive comments. When I read the PNAS response, I don't see it being a "non-responsive explanation" or a "failure to address the five errors identified in the Letter to PNAS". What I see is a refutation of the objections raised by Aschlafly in his letter with regard to the statistics-based issues he raised. The PNAS response devotes seven sentences to explaining why the underlying statistics in the published experiment were sound, and following accepted practices. A follow-up point in the second paragraph states that the statistical misunderstanding by Aschlafly is of such a basic level that the PNAS journal is not the appropriate forum to respond with a lesson in experimental statistics to explain his misunderstanding in detail. In short, they are stating, professionally, that Aschlafly needs to learn more about experimental statistics and then re-examine his issues to see if they are, in fact, issues (which PNAS says they are not).
The PNAS response also states that their letters forum is not the appropriate place to raise objections about whether Lenski has disclosed his data or not to the public. That is a professional response as well.
What I'd suggest then, is that the appropriate response is for Aschlafly to defend the statistical analysis he used in identifying his issues, to respond to the PNAS assertion that it was erroneous. To summarize, PNAS didn't dodge a response - their response is that the analysis was flawed. Any response by Aschlafly to that assertion is up to him. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)