|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: most scientific papers are wrong? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
randman writes: One problem appears to be the severe unwillingness of the evo community to admit to error if in doing so it creates a negative impression of evolution in general. The findings in scientific papers have to be replicable. When replication attempts fail then papers are called into question. Famous examples are the Fleischman/Pons cold fusion fiasco, and more recently Japanese Hwang Woo Suk's cloning claims.
There is a reason evos kept using Haeckel's data 130 years after being exposed as fraudulent. Current scientific papers are using Haeckel's data? Do you have any examples of this? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
randman writes: Are you serious? Sorry, but evo papers are generally not based on anything that can be replicated. Sure evo papers are replicable. They have to be, else they wouldn't be science. You're confusing replication of the scientific process, which has to be possible to be considered science, with replicating history itself, which is obviously impossible. When reconstructing past events in any scientific field, it is the observations, measurements and analysis that are replicable. That's why digs take such care to either preserve or record the in situ environment. Pakicetus is an example of the scientific process as applied to paleontology. All scientific findings are tentative, and as the passage of time brought to light more fossils and allowed further analysis, our view of Pakicetus changed. This is an example of the very thing you say evolutionary scientists do not do, change their views in light of new evidence or improved insight. You didn't reply about Haeckel. Were you claiming that current scientific papers are still using Haeckel's data? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
randman in his reply to jar writes: I have supported all of my contentions. I think I speak for almost everyone on this thread when I say that you don't appear to have been able to support any of your contentions. Most of your contentions are not even on-topic, but are just your standard accusations about evolution that you repeat in every thread regardless of topic. My suggestion to you is to stay focused on the topic, and to develop some criticism that has some substance.
randman, continuing in his reply to jar, writes: You are just too dishonest to admit it, imo. The nature of this medium frequently creates mistrust from disagreement. It is time you recognized this fact of online life. Keep your attention focused on the topic and not on the false impressions that debate at a discussion board creates. Besides, attacks on another member's honesty is against the Forum Guidelines. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
randman writes: Are they still doing it in papers today? I am not sure frankly. Maybe you can answer. You're the one who made the claim, in Message 39:
There is a reason evos kept using Haeckel's data 130 years after being exposed as fraudulent. I inquired about this claim assuming you were addressing the topic of this thread, namely scientific papers being wrong. What was I thinking! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
randman writes: No, I did not make that claim. I claimed evos used Haeckel for 130 years after being exposed as fraudulent, 1868-1998. I already explained that I interpreted your comment in the context of the thread's topic, and that I now understand that you were once again off-topic.
You guys have yet come up with either an appropiate acknowledgement for such incredible error and fraud on the part of the evo community, nor an appropiate excuse for perpetuating such a fraud on the world. This, too, is off-topic, it's just another copy of the Haeckel rant you repeat in every thread, regardless of the topic. This thread's topic is "most scientific papers are wrong?" Do you have an on-topic response to anything or to anyone? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
randman writes: How is it off-topic, percy? The more relevant question is how is it on-topic. The thread's topic is "most scientific papers are wrong?", but you seem to making the same argument you always make, which is that Haeckel's views were perpetuated in textbooks long after they were known to be false. Textbooks are not scientific papers, so how does this support your contention that most scientific papers are wrong? You're like the artist/teacher in The Prime of Miss Jean Brody who whatever model he used could only paint Jean Brody. No matter what the topic, you can only discuss Haeckel. If you want to present evidence that most scientific papers are wrong then please proceed. So far the evidence presented indicates that science is a very human and therefore imperfect endeavor that usually develops improved understandings over time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
randman writes: Textbooks print what is accepted mainstream science which in turn stems from scientific papers and scientists. Richardson pointed out that the claims of a phylotypic stage seemed to be taken on faith, and that Haeckel was the largest and most relied on data to support that claim. So textbooks were merely reflecting the views of evo scientists. And this has what, exactly, to do with the topic? The topic is "most scientific papers are wrong?" If you're done discussing this topic maybe it's time to close this thread. Are you really so myopic that you can only discuss Haeckel no matter what the topic? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
randman writes: When you guys start coming clean about Haeckel instead of denying reality, then maybe it won't come up so much. Where in the Forum Guidelines does it say that if in your opinion there is a topic on which others have been less than forthright, then you are permitted to raise the issue in any thread? The reason rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines exists (stay on topic) is because there have been others before you who had the same difficulty staying on topic. The star in this regard was Peter Borger who during the course of 2002 and 2003 managed to turn every thread in which he participated into a discussion of his favorite topic, GUTB (Grand Unified Theory of Biology). He was eventually permanently suspended for inability to stay on topic.
In terms of the OP, there was a recent paper claiming that a certain gene expressed in the thymus was also expressed in gills, and that was passed on as strong evidence of "deep homology." I raised a lot of questions which I believe would need to be answered prior to the claim of deep homology, but inn typical fashion, evos were all over the paper. Hmmm. No references, no links, no elaboration. Just another unsupported assertion.
Imo, this jumping to conclusions is endemic of evolutionism, and thus the claim of most papers being incorrect, when evos tend to tout unsubstantiated claims (like widely publicizing Pakicetus as aquatic or semi-aquatic before enough data was in), is an important consideration. And as data accumulated and insight improved scientific views changed. That's why science is tentative. Inaccuracies such as Haeckel and Pakicetus and frauds such as the recent Japanese cloning expert are eventually uncovered and remedied because of the requirement of replication, another quality of science. Science is a human endeavor. Where humans are involved there is no perfection, but you have a misconception of the scientific process where you seem to believe that each finding should spring forth perfect and without flaw from out of the minds and experiments of scientists. This is a very naive view. Science proceeds through a process of trial and error. Simple problems are usually resolved before publication, but the more complex the problem the more an accurate picture can only emerge by publishing and letting the greater scientific community absorb, comment and attempt to replicate. From this process progress eventually emerges. If creationists have a better way of producing good science then they are welcome to demonstrate this by producing superior results and outcompeting the scientific mainstream, but the first generation of creationist scientists only produced nonsense like the vapor canopy and hydrologic sorting, and the second generation is only producing nonsense like irreducible complexity and Demski's fabricated version of information theory. There is a contradiction inherent in your viewpoint where you see an incompetent scientific process that somehow manages to advance the art at a rate unprecedented in human history.
Perhaps if evos weren't publicizing wild claims on the cover of Science as they did with Pakicetus, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Big deal or not, it is off-topic. You can't win a debate on a topic you never address. The topic is "most scientific papers are wrong?" I would agree with that. But in any given area they become less wrong over time, and that is what is important, and that is how science is able to make progress. --Percy This message has been edited by Percy, 02-08-2006 09:53 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
inkorrekt writes: Sample size is critical. A large sample size is always useful. The smallest number in a given experiment could be 10 to have a meaning ful result. Once again, it depends on what is being studied. If there are too many variables, then sample size needs to be increased. That would be incorrect, Inkorrekt. Assuming selection of a random sample is possible, the degree of assurance of a correct result is dependent upon sample size, and 10 is definitely too small. I used to do this stuff a little a couple decades ago, and without digging out my old equations my vague recollection, give or take a few but this probably isn't too far off, is that a random sample size of around 1700 is sufficient to have a degree of assurance of 95%. Surprisingly, this sample size is not a function of the size of the full population from which the random set is selected. In other words, whether you're sampling a population of a million or a billion, around 1700 is all you need for 95% assurance if your sample is randomly selected. Naturally if random selection isn't possible larger sample sizes are needed, and determining how much larger is problematic unless the factors affecting random selection are very well understood. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
The experiments you're doing might be structured differently from the situation I was describing. My analyses were for samples of populations, be they people in a country, stars in the sky, or fault visibility in digital designs (guess which one I was doing). What are your samples of? Maybe my situation isn't relevant to the discussion.
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024