Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conservapedia challenge"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(What missing data?: new section)
Line 71: Line 71:
  
 
In order that this Conservapedia Challenge be run on a fair and comprehensible basis could someone provide a clear satatement of exactly what data is missing?  --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 18:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 
In order that this Conservapedia Challenge be run on a fair and comprehensible basis could someone provide a clear satatement of exactly what data is missing?  --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 18:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 +
== Acceptance of challenge mistakenly reverted==
 +
'' apparently this reply accepting the challenge was mistaken reverted. I apologize in advance for any misunderstanding.''
 +
 +
(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! --TonyLloyd 17:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 16:18, 3 July 2008

A challenge! Very well, Sir, I accept!

I am not a rich man and would be unable to handle all the data accumulated over twenty years. Neither do I think it acceptable to enjoin a publically funded organization to spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data without a defined public benefit.


Let us, then, agree a hypothesis that can be tested by ' 'some' ', of Prof. Lenski's unpublished data. I will then procure from said Professor either: 1) That very data, which I will then deliver to you, or 2) An admission from the Professor that he does not have that data

If I succeed you will: 1) procure me one pint of Fuller's "London Pride" at the Nicholson's pub in the Strand, London, and display a picture of me drinking it on the front page of Conservapedia. 2) Publish a statement on the front page of Conservapedia stating that you accept Professor Lenski's honesty and professionalism.

I await: 1) Your hypothesis 2) The data that would test it 3) Your "prize" should I fail

Regards Tony Lloyd (User:TonyLloyd

Your "offer" is fascinating but also self-contradictory. On the one hand you imply that there are voluminous data ("spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data"), but on the other hand you suggest that Lenski may not have any such data! You also seem to misunderstand or ignore the purpose and benefits of public scrutiny, as the data are not merely for me ("your hypothesis" and "data that would test it") but for all the public who paid for the data.--Aschlafly 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
As I have asked elsewhere Mr Schlafly I really do think you need to clarify nature of the data requested and who would examine it, and explain if you accept the data are represented by the organisms (and if you think the data are not represented by the organisms explain why not.)--British_cons (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)


At least one blogger has already claimed to have won the challenge: No Latitude. He cites and links to the following data: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9107.full.pdf+html http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2004,%20Plant%20Breeding%20Reviews,%20Lenski.pdf http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20JME,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20PNAS,%20Cooper%20et%20al.pdf

Of these, the last is particularly data-rich.

The missing data are very specific. The above citation list is a common tactic of distraction: try to obscure by burying the reader with volumes of meaningless or less meaningful info. Most of the dates on those cites are years ago, predating when key data could have even occurred.--Aschlafly 14:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Most of the dates on those cites are years ago But not ALL of them, right? What about those citations which do not predate what you are looking for? Also, the Lenski dialogue now exists on several talk pages besides this one, some of them archived. I'm a busy person and do not have time to go hunting around through dozens if not hundreds of posts. Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to state here, in a concise manner, what data exactly that would satisfy your request? - I say this in part because many of your interlocutors are trying to make YOU look unreasonable by making it appear as though you want Lenski to ship you on old mustard jar full of e coli (yes, I'm exaggerating)...I think it would do this discussion some good to refocus it on a short list of exactly what it is you're looking for...AliceBG 14:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
The oldest paper there is from generation 20,000.JPohl 14:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)


There is no contradiction in "obtaining or admission of non-existence". If a piece of data is essential for a conclusion and yet does not exist then that non-existence provides bad faith on the part of the person reaching (and publishing) the conclusion.

I do understand about 'public scrutiny'. However this undefined 'public scrutiny' is vacuous testing 'in potentia'. I am suggesting actual public scrutiny. I am suggesting formulation of a hypothesis and a test which that hypothesis may fail. If it escapes refutation it will become corroborated. If it fails then we must accept that failure.

Cheers

Tony (on a windows mobile device and unable to "sign")

The value in public scrutiny is to allow many to review the data. Your insistence on a single "hypothesis" is contrary to the very benefit of public review. Also, it's obvious to me that Lenski will not allow public scrutiny of the publicly funded data, and thus proposing a hypothesis would be a fool's errand.--Aschlafly 16:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Has the PNAS been contacted regarding this matter? --Jareddr 16:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome to do so. PNAS does not make it easy to contact it, and accountability is far from clear at that publication. If you can post an appropriate contact here, then I'd be happy to follow up with it about its stated policy and what the procedure is for ensuring compliance with it.--Aschlafly 16:12, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
pnas@nas.edu • phone: 1-202-334-2679 • fax: 1-202-334-2739 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarieB (talk)
To elaborate on the contact info, "Authors must make Unique Materials (e.g., cloned DNAs; antibodies; bacterial, animal, or plant cells; viruses; and computer programs) promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal. It is reasonable for authors to charge a modest amount to cover the cost of preparing and shipping the requested material. Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials." Here would be another good spot. [1]--Jareddr 16:32, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Thanks MarieB, I just called the number for PNAS that you provided. The PNAS staffer said that I should first contact the author to request the data, which I have done, and if that is unsuccessful, as it has been, then the next step is to contact PNAS at the above email address.
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." [2]--Aschlafly 16:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Yeah but they really aren't saying that any tom, dick or harry should have access. They say:
"PNAS does not endorse this restriction because we believe that it would limit the sharing of materials with industry. Requiring a company to not make commercial use of scientific results seems wrong in principle and hardly enforceable. The overriding principle is that once something is published it should be freely shared by everyone."
So they want the information to be freely shared with "industry". MAnderson 17:34, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

What missing data?

In order that this Conservapedia Challenge be run on a fair and comprehensible basis could someone provide a clear satatement of exactly what data is missing? --DenningMR 18:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Acceptance of challenge mistakenly reverted

apparently this reply accepting the challenge was mistaken reverted. I apologize in advance for any misunderstanding.

(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! --TonyLloyd 17:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)