quote:
I already explained that what I meant was the data was fraudulent in the sense of it being wrong.
But being an
intentional deception is a very different thing from being
wrong.
Let's say I am mugged and I go to look at mug shots at the police station.
a) I see a picture of an ex-boyfriend who owes me a bunch of money and who used to treat me really badly, and I identify him as the guy who robbed me, even though I know full well that he didn't do it.
That is fraud.
b) I see a picture of someone who I am positive is the person who mugged me and I pick him out. It turns out that this guy was actually in jail at the time of the mugging, so my positive identification was mistaken.
That is being wrong.
The first is intentional deceit, the second is an honest mistake.
Do you honestly expect me to believe that these two situations are identical?
Either back up your claim that scientists are engaging in intentional deception or retract the claim and stop making the claim in the future unless you have specific evidence of widespread lying.
quote:
I cannot judge the motives of evolutionists so I have no way to tell if they somehow knew the data did not show webbed feet or not, and things like that.
Then you don't know if they were lying or not, so you cannot claim to know that they are perpetrating
fraud, or intentionally lying.
quote:
As far as papers, most of the public does not read academic journals.
Well, you are making very serious accusations about the integrity and trustworthiness of an entire body of evidence of a particular branch of Biology, much of which has grave and far-reaching implications upon the foundations of several other fields of scientific research, are you not?
Surely it is quite reasonable to expect you to show us some specific examples of this fraud and/or incompetence from the professional literature, since it is the findings themselves you are calling into question, isn't it?
If it is quite widespread, as you say, it shouldn't be difficult for you, correct?
quote:
Evolutionists tend to present their findings to the public via popular magazines such as National Geographic which did present the webbed feet, as I have shown already several times but you ignore, TV shows such as PBS specials, textbooks, articles, etc,...
No, actually Biologists tend NOT to produce television shows or write popular magazine articles.
Scientists, as opposed to TV producers and journalists, tend to present their findings to other scientists at scientific conferences, or submit their work to professional peer-reviewed scientific journals.
But aren't you calling into question the validity of the scientific findings themselves anyway?
This would require a review of the primary literature to determine the accuracy of the methodology and of the conclusions, wouldn't it?
Here, I'll get you started.
Please explain how the following peer-reviewed research paper from the Journal of Evolutionary Biology is fraudulent (meaning, the scientists are knowingly maintaining falsehoods in order to deceive everyone) or invalid due to the incompetency of the scientists in it's analysis, methodology, or conclusions:
The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in spatially structured environments: implications of intraspecific competition, plasticity costs and environmental characteristics, B. Ernande* & U. Dieckmann
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-08-2005 11:50 PM
™ Version 4.2
