Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 2:40 AM
41 online now:
Dredge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 36 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,539 Year: 3,576/19,786 Month: 571/1,087 Week: 161/212 Day: 3/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   most scientific papers are wrong?
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1007 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 46 of 113 (284452)
02-06-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by inkorrekt
02-06-2006 11:44 AM


Re: How reliable are the Scientific papers?
I am sorry but I question your credibility here.
quote:
I asked a simple question" When a neurotransmitter is attached to the receptor, the membrane fluidity around the receptor is decreased. If so, the complex must be floating. What holds the complex in place? He did not answer. I was punished for this. When you challenge the Ivory towers, your career is finished.

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:
If I had a choice between a First grade BS(Bachelor of Science) and 3rd rate Ph.D, I would only hire the First Grade BS...There is no reason for you to become so angry at my remarks. If you are not aware of all these events, that does not mean that they do not exist. I am not discrediting the entire Scientific community. Thre are many brilliant men and women with Ph.D's and they are contributing a lot.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by inkorrekt, posted 02-06-2006 11:44 AM inkorrekt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by inkorrekt, posted 02-08-2006 10:39 PM Lithodid-Man has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2975 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 47 of 113 (284458)
02-06-2006 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
02-06-2006 3:10 PM


Re: Still need an answer to past messages.
I have supported all of my contentions. You are just too dishonest to admit it, imo.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 02-06-2006 3:10 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 02-06-2006 7:00 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2975 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 48 of 113 (284461)
02-06-2006 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
02-06-2006 1:27 PM


Re: replication?
1868-1998 equals 130 years. Isn't it strange how long evos passed fakes off as fact.

Are they still doing it in papers today?

I am not sure frankly. Maybe you can answer. I would hope with all the attention this has gotten in the past 30 years that evos have quit passing off these fakes and the false ideas associated with them as true, but then again, you'd have thought they would have stopped doing it in the 1800s, and it didn't stop'em.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 02-06-2006 1:27 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 02-06-2006 7:02 PM randman has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 49 of 113 (284481)
02-06-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
02-06-2006 5:57 PM


Re: Still need an answer to past messages.
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 02-06-2006 5:57 PM randman has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 50 of 113 (284483)
02-06-2006 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
02-06-2006 6:04 PM


Re: replication?
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 02-06-2006 6:04 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 2:02 PM Percy has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2975 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 51 of 113 (284604)
02-07-2006 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
02-06-2006 7:02 PM


Re: replication?
No, I did not make that claim. I claimed evos used Haeckel for 130 years after being exposed as fraudulent, 1868-1998.

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 02-06-2006 7:02 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 02-07-2006 2:19 PM randman has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 52 of 113 (284609)
02-07-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
02-07-2006 2:02 PM


Re: replication?
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 2:02 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 2:23 PM Percy has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2975 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 53 of 113 (284610)
02-07-2006 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
02-07-2006 2:19 PM


Re: replication?
How is it off-topic, percy? I suppose when you don't have a good answer, it's OT?

I was asked the relevance of the OP, and one relevant point is that evos have tended to keep false data around, as Haeckel's forgeries illustrate. There is a tendency to rush to accept something that is published and print it widely and claim it is factual. We saw this with Pakicetus. We saw it with Neanderthals. Once in the textbooks and course curriculums, put there by evos, it tends to stay, and so myths are created.

Most of the "icons" of evolution are myths created in this manner.

This message has been edited by randman, 02-07-2006 02:25 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 02-07-2006 2:19 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 02-07-2006 3:20 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2975 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 54 of 113 (284611)
02-07-2006 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
02-06-2006 3:10 PM


Re: Still need an answer to past messages.
jar, is this a trick by you and percy. You ask for something, and then percy says it's off-topic if I respond.

Kind of like Catch22?

Evos tend to widely publicize initial findings and are very, very slow, if ever, to correct those findings. It took over 130 years with Haeckel. That's 130 years, hard fought, to get evos to back off false claims, and even then, plenty of evos as some around here refuse to admit to the full extent of the fraud. The Pakicetus errors are still around to a degree. It took 50 years, maybe more, with Neanderthals.

It's called myth-making, and a large reason evolutionism should be considered as much a quasi-religious ideology or philosophy as real science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 02-06-2006 3:10 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 02-07-2006 2:34 PM randman has responded
 Message 58 by jar, posted 02-07-2006 3:12 PM randman has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8838
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 55 of 113 (284614)
02-07-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by randman
02-07-2006 2:30 PM


RM wrong still
You are, Randman, wrong about the Haekel issue. That is why bringing it up again and again is a waste of time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 2:30 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 2:42 PM NosyNed has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2975 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 56 of 113 (284618)
02-07-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NosyNed
02-07-2006 2:34 PM


Re: RM wrong still
Wrong on what point?

1.Do you deny he faked his data?
2. Do you deny evos taught the Biogenetic law as factual even when it wasn't? and did so for a full 50 years after everyone in the field knew it was wrong?
3. Do you deny that recapitulation theory, also taught, is wrong?
4. How about the claims of the phylotypic stage, which was based on Haeckel's data according to Richardson in his 1997 study?

Exactly how am I wrong on any of my claims relative to Haeckel?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 02-07-2006 2:34 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 02-07-2006 2:43 PM randman has responded
 Message 74 by Lithodid-Man, posted 02-08-2006 3:03 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 82 by bernd, posted 02-09-2006 9:22 AM randman has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8838
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 57 of 113 (284619)
02-07-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
02-07-2006 2:42 PM


Re: RM wrong still
You are wrong. That is all that one has to say to someone who never supports his claims nor answers critisms posted.

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-07-2006 02:43 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 2:42 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 3:54 PM NosyNed has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 58 of 113 (284628)
02-07-2006 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by randman
02-07-2006 2:30 PM


Re: Still need an answer to past messages.
No randman. You have not answered the question asked.

Let me try to work through this with you.

The question is "What problem exists with publishing findings even if wrong?"

What is OT is your repetitious Haeckeling which has nothing to do with the issue.

So let us go back to the quetion.

Is it possible to question or challenge a finding that is not published?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 2:30 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 59 of 113 (284629)
02-07-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by randman
02-07-2006 2:23 PM


Re: replication?
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 2:23 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 3:52 PM Percy has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2975 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 60 of 113 (284631)
02-07-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
02-07-2006 3:20 PM


Re: replication?
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.

some reference material for you to check out

Contrary to recent claims
that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when
they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold
variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey
seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel’s
drawings, which depict not a conserved stage for vertebrates,

One puzzling feature of the debate in this field is that
while many authors have written of a conserved embryonic
stage, no one has cited any comparative data in support
of the idea. It is almost as though the phylotypic
stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no
proof is needed.

http://www.mk-richardson.com/PDFs/Anat%20Embryol.pdf


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 02-07-2006 3:20 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 02-07-2006 4:51 PM randman has responded

  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019