21
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 179:
Line 179: + + + + + +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 23:19, November 3, 2008
, 23:19, November 3, 2008→Point 5 Rejected: A reasoned argument is not a rant.
:: Moreover, as I already explained above, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading. Lenski's use of "whether or not" obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner. I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 2 November 2008 (EST)
:: Moreover, as I already explained above, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading. Lenski's use of "whether or not" obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner. I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 2 November 2008 (EST)
:::Aschlafly,
:::1. A reasoned argument is not a rant. No-one should be afraid of a reasoned argument and it would be cowardly to use superior power (i.e. control over who can and cannot contribute to CP) to avoid having one.
:::2. Please see above for my comment regarding Whitlock's paper on whether or not to weight the Z-test. That paper is not decisive (it cannot be decisive as it only considereda limited number of scenarios in computer simulations) so it cannot be considered "correct" (your word). I would say that whether or not to weight the Z-test is purely a matter of choice at the present state of scientific understanding.
:::3. I and many others have pointed out on this page (including discussions which you've archived) that it doesn't actually matter in biological terms whether Lenski used the weighted or unweighted Z-test. The result is still significant, albeit at different levels.
:::4. I understand from that fact you're now arguing about the precise level of significance of Lenski's result that you've conceded my main point, that your Point 5 is not tenable. Can we at least agree on that question? [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 18:19, 3 November 2008 (EST)
==Refereeing of Scientific Papers==
==Refereeing of Scientific Papers==