|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: most scientific papers are wrong? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Inkorrekt,
I would very much like to know your education level. You claim to be a biologist and seem to imply (I apologize if I am wrong) that you have risen through some academic ranks. So what degrees? In what? This is not off-topic because you are using your academic background to lend credence to the idea that there is a bias (and outright fradulence) within the scientific community. So I feel it is fair that you let us know. Also, who was this PhD student? I would love to talk to their committee members (especially the chair) and post an update about this. I do suspect, however, that this is not someone you actually know, nor know anyone who knows them. Probably a bit a of trivia from a creo website. Now to the heart of it. You claim that software can make up experiments, results, and pie charts and that because of this real scientists now lack integrity? Forum guidelines prevent me from venting my gut reaction to that statement and to you. But I will try to address it. I am a scientist, a REAL biologist. I went through years and years of education. I am still writing my dissertation for my PhD. I performed experiments, did research, wrote papers, submitted ms' etc. During that time we sacrificed a great deal (my wife and I) in time money, etc. And for you to make a flippant claim that we are a bunch of frauds is downright insulting. From your post it is pretty clear that you have absolutely no knowledge of how science and academia works. Your opening description of your "experiment" is outright ridiculous. Who asked you to repeat the experiment even though the animals died? Deadline for the paper? Was this a high school project? Because you are not talking about journal submission. Are you saying the journal reviwers asked you to repeat the experiment? There is absolutely no such thing EVER EVER in any real scientific endeavour. You claim if the first experiment was flawed you would lose your grants? What grants and from where? I am going out on a limb and suggest that you are trying to imply that the grantors were looking for a particular result and you had to come up with that result. I am sorry but that it absolute BS. It don't work that way. Even corporate scientists who are paid to do biased research aren't made to repeat experiments like this (although some results may be favored over others). As has been said over and over again, ANYONE who could publish results which demonstrate that the ToE is flawed or wrong would be immediately the most famous scientist in the world, be an overnight millionaire, and would undoubtedly win the Nobel. Edited to change "with the Nobel" to "win the Nobel" This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 02-05-2006 06:03 AM Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
quote: I think Rand that this is the operative phrase. As far as you can tell, up to the level that you understand the concept. From all that I have read of your posts it is very very clear that you know virtually nothing about evolution, science, etc. and furthermore have made a great effort to NOT learn more. Now to your suggestion about "no integrity". This is back to that same point you keep pushing and pushing. That because Kent Hovind (or some other such fraud) told you that all of evolutionary science rests solely on Haeckel's drawings and whether or not Pakicetus is drawn with webbed feet (did I leave anything out? Those are your two arguments you bring back to every thread over and over again) you can burst the evolutionary bubble by making those claims again and again. Here's a lack of integrity for you. What is it when you read something online that claims that a Physicist 'proved' ID, then the reader claims that they have been studying the primary literature which, btw, says nothing remotely close to your claims (at least not that I seen so far, I have been collecting papers). Rather than admit that they know nothing about the topic outside of regurgitating a creo source it is easier to continue using a physicist as a shield. All you have to do is keep claiming that since the physicist is obviously smarter than your opponent and mistakenly believing that the physicist supports your claim. Is that the kind of integrity you support, Rand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Sorry, but I don't believe you. You want me to believe that you were just browsing through an evo textbook one day and said, "Hey, those are the drawings that were discredited over 100 years ago, what are they doing in my textbook?". Or that while perusing National Geographic as a convinced evolutionist you noticed the webbed feet on the reconstruction and realized that the entire theory was resting on an artist's reconstruction in a pop-sci magazine? Or is it much more likely that you read these from creo sources as the exact same statements are made on pretty much every creo website in existence?
I don't you want to think that I am maliciously attacking you. I have read your posts on religious topics with interest and respect. What I have a problem with is when you discuss science from an uniformed stance and claim it to be your own viewpoint based on research even though identical arguments are made on well-known creo websites, and those arguments have been discredited yet you bring them up repeatedly. If I sound like I am taking a harsh tone with you it is because I know from your other posts on other topics that you are intelligent and capable of making good arguments. There are several creos here (and you are one of them) that I feel can really contribute to a good debate which benefits us all (there is nothing that solidifies a concept better for me than trying to defend it as I have to go back and dust off old material and relearn stuff). I want you to use your intellect to search and find NEW defences of Creationism and critiques of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
I am sorry but I question your credibility here.
quote:Unless you left out a whole bunch of words here this makes no sense. Are you talking about the shift in membrane states from fluid state to gel state? Even in the fluid state protein complexes are anchored in the membrane via van der Waals interaction with fatty acids. This is pretty basic cell-mol stuff, I find it hard to believe it would have stumped Dr. Axelrod. I even find it harder to believe that anyone would consider this challenging the ivory tower or that this finished your career (unless there is a whole lot more to the story than you are saying) quote:In many years of school and research I have never heard anyone holding a PhD make the claim that they think the degree is worthless (you are arguing from the 'it's just a piece of paper' perspective). This makes me suspect you don't have one. Reminds me of a lab tech I worked around who would constatntly lure you into the "I know more about genetics than any of these guys around here..." argument. Would sneer at the prospect of actually going to grad school, seemed content just believing he was superior. It would be a rare BS recipient that I would believe has the knowledge to design, plan, and carry out a research program. I graduated summa cum laude and I knew NOTHING about how to do real research work until I was in grad school. You are disparaging the entire scientific community, whether your realize it or not. Give the numbers you claim this means that 75% of scientists are mediocre or worthless (btw, 15 + 60 + 15 = 90, hmmm). What this means is that my colleagues and I here are either mediocre or worthless OR (even worse) in the exceptional group but tolerate and/or turn a blind eye to the lying, cheating, thieving rest of them. I will state unequivocally that in my years as student and faculty I have met 1 PhD recipient that I didn't think deserved it, and they grew into the position after the fact. Now to the topic, you claim the 80% of scientific papers are not worth reading? I want to know by what standard you make that judgement. I would agree that there are flaws in many if not most papers. The vast majority of these are minor, even if major they rarely affect the conclusion. If they do, then they provide a springboard for more research. That is what science is all about. It is really wrong to make the claim that 80% of papers are that bad when I would be surprised if ANY of us read 1% of what is published every year. By your claim (true or not) that you are somehow a scientific insider you are trying to validate a totally incorrect statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
I will try to address this Haeckel issue in such a way that it remains on topic. Unfortunately I am repeating the answers to this that have been brought up over and over again. I am teaching a class on evolution this semester, so I printed out and read in detail the Richardson paper you keep bringing up.
First of all, have you read this paper? Because your summaries of it do not bear out the conclusions you keep mentioning. YES it is true that Haeckel exaggerated those characters most similar to support his recapitulation theory. And he was caught for it. By researchers at that time. But at no time has his 'fraud' been used in textbooks over and over again for 130 years. The science of embryology has been used. But they are NOT the same thing. Do you understand this? You are using every depiction of similar embryonic stages between taxa (which do exist) as evidence that 'evos' are perpetuating a fraud. No textbook is preaching recapitulation today or for 130 years. And if there is one they are seriously in error. They are teaching that there are homologies in embryonic development. The Richardson paper is showing that there is great flexibility in embryonic morphology. That even though there are highly conserved developmental phases (such as development of somites, development of pharyngeal pouches) that these do not follow a strict phylogenetic pattern between craniate classes. It is not the purpose of the paper to discredit the science of embryonic homology. In fact it strongly supports this idea within classes. That is mammals do have a strongly conserved phylotype in the embryo, but that it differs from the like in fish, reptiles, etc. You are confusing several completely different points: 1) Haeckel exaggerated the similarities between embryos (BAD on his part) 2) Haeckel advocated a recapitulation theory dependent upon a phylotypic phase (wrong, but good science and shown to be wrong by his peers as it should be) 3) Comparison of embryos of craniates show remarkable similarity. Texbooks may have used Haeckel's drawings because they were available but most did not. Those that did were in the wrong BUT Haeckel's drawings were not so far off as to be misleading. The texbook we use for our intro has photographs of the same assemblages and the conclusions students draw is the same. Have you looked at those? 4) All craniates go through similar developmental phases, and those are tied to gene homologies. What differs is that those phases express different genes at different times and those traits may be linked to morphological characters of the adults. What is important is that ALL craniates have seven pharyngeal pounches. The first pair of those pouches grow into the jaws of most craniates (but not the lampreys and hagfish). The posterior pairs become the gills arches of most fishes and the earbones and other structures in tetrapods. 5) (And this is most important to you Randman) Recapitulation is not the same as embryonic homology. Haeckel's theory, Haeckel's 'fraud' has not been presented as fact for 130 years. Haeckel's work makes him the father of embryology even though we can say "shame" for the biased drawings. Recapitulation was falsified in Haeckel's time, the science of embryology and the concept of a phylotypic phase remained as a valid topic of discussion. Now to insure this is on topic. I find it very amusing Randman that you are so quick to slam all 'evo' papers as propaganda and fraud as in the OP. But you cite (at least the closing paragraphs, I still am unsure if you read it or if you did if you understood it) the Richardson paper as if it is some kind of Gospel. This paper is very intriguing, and very supportive of the idea that embryology supports evolution. It is suggesting only that selective factors of later ontological phases may be reflected in embryos. Do you see the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Sorry, please forgive me Admins, but I cannot help myself.
quote:I admit he exaggerated his drawings quote:No, I have seen no evidence that this happened. quote:I know that recapitulation is wrong. I deny that is taught anywhere in any legitimate institution. quote:Completely irrelevant. May or may not be true not not important to the ToE. As stated in my previous post you probably haven't read this paper or at least did not understand it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Graduate schools are paper mills
I take exception to this, I busted my balls to earn my degree (MS) and am currently doing so for my doctorate. I will include in this dozens of of co-students I have personally worked with who would take exception to this statement. That is a really offensive thing to say. Maybe medical science is greatly different (and I don't believe this is the case), but you are making the claim for post-grads in general.The term 'paper mill degrees' best applies to hucksters like Kent Hovind or Carl Baugh.
Those days when the Scientists toiled day and night because of the passion are all gone.
Another insult. I love my work, and everyone I work with does the same. We get long hours (I am teaching 13 credit hours this semester) for shit pay. In addition I am doing my dissertation research. Those of us in biology generally are not in the field for rich reward, we do it because we love it. I think I can speak for most biologists in this respect. If you worked with Dr. Paintal then you can consider yourself fortunate for working with one of the founders of modern physiology. But I highly doubt that he would agree with your denigration of the scientific method and the training of grad stdents. You never answered my questions. What degrees did you achieve? Under whom? In what field? You sound alot like a bitter lab tech. And who was the student (and advisor, and committe members) who was refused a doctorate because they were a creationist?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024