Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
93 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (4 members, 89 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,136 Year: 6,248/6,534 Month: 441/650 Week: 211/278 Day: 7/44 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 25 of 207 (141401)
09-10-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ID man
09-10-2004 1:03 PM


Sure thing ID man, by far the majority of ID proponents are Raelians. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 1:03 PM ID man has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 98 of 207 (142728)
09-16-2004 12:20 PM


Richard Sternberg has a website addressing some of the concerns voiced about the process by which Meyer's paper made its way into print.

It doesn't exactly clear everything up but it clarifies his position on a few things at least. He also goes to some lengths to distance himself from YEC.

TTFN,

WK


Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 09-16-2004 2:20 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 105 of 207 (142881)
09-17-2004 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Percy
09-16-2004 3:51 PM


Percy writes:

Wallace was brilliant but evidently not schooled in the methods of science, for he shortly after fell into pseudoscientific beliefs, promoting seances and such.

Sadly this doesn't neccessarily mean he was unschooled in the methods of science, merely that he may have been selective in what areas he chose to apply that learning to, an all too common occurrence.

I have to say I wasn't impressed by Sternbergs characterisation of the reaction to the publication. He gave us four groups:

1) The extremists who denounced the fact that any work mentioning ID could get into a peer reviewed journal.

2) Those following the herd and influenced by members of the first group, who only objected because they were told they should be.

3) People whose work isn't impacted by evolution and therefore don't care one way or another.

4) People sympathetic to ID who offered their wholehearted support.

It seems that the only people who could object on any grounds must either be sheep or extremists.

Surely having recognised that the paper would be controversial it would have been wise of Sternberg to consult further than his one anonymous colleague who now appears to have decided not to put his head above the parapet.

TTFN,

WK

This message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-17-2004 04:39 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 09-16-2004 3:51 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 09-17-2004 6:37 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 176 of 207 (146445)
10-01-2004 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Percy
10-01-2004 8:52 AM


Re: Fact Check
I just checked on the references on WOK (ISI's Web of Knowledge) and I've found a couple of them the ANOPA paper and the 'role of repetitive elements paper.

I don't think there is any reason to doubt his publication record.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Percy, posted 10-01-2004 8:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 10-01-2004 10:30 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022