Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8950 total)
39 online now:
candle2, DrJones*, nwr (3 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,331 Year: 22,367/19,786 Month: 930/1,834 Week: 430/500 Day: 63/66 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   most scientific papers are wrong?
jar
Member
Posts: 31794
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 76 of 113 (284943)
02-08-2006 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
02-08-2006 12:32 AM


still waiting for randman's answers to questions raised earlier in the thread
and again in Message 58.

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 69 by randman, posted 02-08-2006 12:32 AM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by inkorrekt, posted 02-08-2006 10:19 PM jar has responded
 Message 87 by Wounded King, posted 02-09-2006 5:46 PM jar has responded
 Message 111 by inkorrekt, posted 03-01-2006 9:28 PM jar has not yet responded

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4426 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 77 of 113 (285097)
02-08-2006 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
02-08-2006 12:26 PM


Re: still waiting for randman's answers to questions raised earlier in the thread
No, this is impossible. Unpublished atricles do not mean anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 02-08-2006 12:26 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 02-08-2006 10:21 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31794
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 78 of 113 (285098)
02-08-2006 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by inkorrekt
02-08-2006 10:19 PM


Re: still waiting for randman's answers to questions raised earlier in the thread
Very good. Now let's see what randman answers.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by inkorrekt, posted 02-08-2006 10:19 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4426 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 79 of 113 (285099)
02-08-2006 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Trixie
02-07-2006 4:51 PM


Re: A quibble -- sorry
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.

This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 02-08-2006 10:24 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Trixie, posted 02-07-2006 4:51 PM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 9:45 AM inkorrekt has responded

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4426 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 80 of 113 (285101)
02-08-2006 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Lithodid-Man
02-06-2006 5:35 PM


Re: How reliable are the Scientific papers?
You are an exception. You are fortunate. Even the brilliant young Scientist can be doomed if he does not have a good mentor who is equally passionate about Science.Graduate schools are paper mills. The tenure demands that they publish papers to justify the position. The graduate students must produce papers. The higher the Greater their success as faculty. What will a young Scientist do? He will have to sacrifice his passions to get aposition. This perpetuates. My sister in law was afaculty in a medical school. She was laid off because, she lost her grants. Those days when the Scientists toiled day and night because of the passion are all gone. If you read the life of Pierre and Marie Curie, it is fascinating. We do not have scietists of that caliber anymore. The Director of my research lab passed away. He had an MD in Physiology. His hobby was electronics. He collected 2nd world war junk and designed his own cathode ray oscilloscope. It looked like a huge cabinet with controls like steering wheels. It worked. With this contraption, he identified stretch receptors in the lung. They are in Text books now. These receptors are named after him. Paintal Receptors. This I call as real research. His papers are original and are classical references.

You are wrong when you said, I was derailing the entire Scientific community. I never said that. You can criticize me over anything. But, the facts do not change.

I also had an Electronic Engineer who had the degree. But, he did not know the basics of electronics. He burnt few of my devices. My hobby is electronics. In the graduate school. I maintained many of the instruments which even the technician and the in house engineer could not fix. They studied but, did nto have common sense. I was able to troubleshoot only by reading the manuals. Once, the Beckman SLiquid Scintiollation counter failed. The engineer came and replaed the high bvoltage transformer. It still did not work.My advisor asked me to look at it. From the schematics, I asked him if he checked the power oscillator transistrs. He did not. He did not even know how to test them. With my little knowledge, I showed him. There was another defective component. Ihelped him to replace. IT worked. I did the work and he got paid. I am not unhappy. My excitement over the instrumetn working was worth more than money.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Lithodid-Man, posted 02-06-2006 5:35 PM Lithodid-Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Chiroptera, posted 02-08-2006 10:54 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Lithodid-Man, posted 02-11-2006 7:15 AM inkorrekt has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6841
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 81 of 113 (285102)
02-08-2006 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by inkorrekt
02-08-2006 10:39 PM


Re: How reliable are the Scientific papers?
Aw jeez. So now you are an expert in electronics and know more than people actually trained in it?

People might take you more seriously if you would take the time to read up on the Urey/Miller experiments and then correct the rather egregious errors you made in a pervious post instead of continuing these claims of what a supergenius you are in all fields.


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by inkorrekt, posted 02-08-2006 10:39 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-09-2006 5:44 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
bernd
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 82 of 113 (285152)
02-09-2006 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
02-07-2006 2:42 PM


Re: RM wrong still
Hello Randman,

You wrote:


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?

A discussion of your questions is probably off topic in this thread. Why don't you discuss the points one to three here [1]? The thread is intended to explore the following article [2], wherein Richardson revises his positions on Haeckel's theory and drawings - which I suppose has some consequences for your favourite arguments.
Finally, your last point is in my opinion irrelevant for the ToE. If you don't agree, I would propose to discuss the topic in this thread [3].

-Bernd


[1] Message 1
[2] http://www.mk-richardson.com/PDFs/biolrevs.pdf
[3] Message 1

This message has been edited by bernd, 10-Feb-2006 12:04 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 2:42 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19117
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 83 of 113 (285159)
02-09-2006 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by inkorrekt
02-08-2006 10:23 PM


Re: A quibble -- sorry
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by inkorrekt, posted 02-08-2006 10:23 PM inkorrekt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2006 2:44 PM Percy has responded
 Message 92 by Belfry, posted 02-11-2006 6:37 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 106 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 6:57 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 113 (285254)
02-09-2006 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
02-09-2006 9:45 AM


Re: A quibble -- sorry
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.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what I've learned in lab science classes, scientific experiments largely proceed under at least a 5% confidence interval.

I mean, I'm working for the research arm of the USDA now, and there's no a single experiment we're working on that has almost 2000 samples. About the most I've ever seen has been something like 10 or 20 independant samples of each variable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 9:45 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 5:15 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19117
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 85 of 113 (285289)
02-09-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by crashfrog
02-09-2006 2:44 PM


Re: A quibble -- sorry
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2006 2:44 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2006 5:04 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 86 of 113 (285299)
02-09-2006 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Chiroptera
02-08-2006 10:54 PM


Re: How reliable are the Scientific papers?
Aw jeez. So now you are an expert in electronics and know more than people actually trained in it?

Actually Chirop, that isn't too far fetched. I just had a similar thing happen here when a supposedly highly trained engineer came to install an new ICP-OES system in my new lab. It wouldn't work and he was on the verge of sending it back to the factory before i stepped in and showed him what was wrong.

OK so I used to be a highly trained instrumental engineer myself but that isn't the point. I would say that 90% of the engineers that I have worked with or trained over the years have just about had enough skill get by without being fired for incompetence. The other 10% were absolutely brilliant at lateral thinking and trouble-shooting.

Anyway this is kind of off topic so I will shut up and go away now. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Chiroptera, posted 02-08-2006 10:54 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by inkorrekt, posted 03-01-2006 9:11 PM PurpleYouko has not yet responded
 Message 112 by inkorrekt, posted 03-01-2006 9:30 PM PurpleYouko has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2439 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 87 of 113 (285301)
02-09-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
02-08-2006 12:26 PM


Re: still waiting for randman's answers to questions raised earlier in the thread
Is it possible to question or challenge a finding that is not published?

Isn't that the entire point of the initial stages of peer review, to question and challenge as yet unpublished work? This is also why many people present the work they are currently engaged in at conferences ,either as talks or as posters, to invite questions and criticism ideally of the constructive kind.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 02-08-2006 12:26 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 02-09-2006 5:50 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31794
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 88 of 113 (285304)
02-09-2006 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Wounded King
02-09-2006 5:46 PM


Re: still waiting for randman's answers to questions raised earlier in the thread
I would include the peer review process, conferences and the whole concept of open access to ideas as part of the publishing procedure.

The idea is that unless an idea is out there for criticism, it cannot be confirmed or falsified.

But let's see what randman says.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Wounded King, posted 02-09-2006 5:46 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1275 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 89 of 113 (285806)
02-11-2006 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by inkorrekt
02-08-2006 10:39 PM


Re: How reliable are the Scientific papers?
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by inkorrekt, posted 02-08-2006 10:39 PM inkorrekt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by inkorrekt, posted 02-11-2006 7:06 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 110 by inkorrekt, posted 03-01-2006 9:26 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 113 (285857)
02-11-2006 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Percy
02-09-2006 5:15 PM


Re: A quibble -- sorry
What are your samples of?

Samples of populations, analyzed for certain traits. So long as we're able to conclude that the distribution of the sample has a 5% chance or better of being a random deviation from the "expected" distribution of the population, we conclude that it is.

Like, if we have a sample of people and we're looking at their height, and we find that there's a 5% chance or greater that the difference between the distribution in our sample and the distribution in the whole is due to nothing more than chance, then we conclude that the sample we have is truly random, and not the result of some kind of selection for heights.

Again, unless I'm way off base, here, we take anything over 5% confidence. Yeah, I was surprised, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 5:15 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Belfry, posted 02-11-2006 5:54 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019