Conservapedia:Lenski affair talk 1

1 - 2 - 3

First post: 13:30, 13 June 2008 oldid=473127 Last post : 11:26, 15 June 2008 oldid=474718

Suggest moving this to Essay:Lenski Dialogue or Conservapedia:Lenski Dialogue, for two reasons.

One: As with your page, this is /not/ encyclopedic content. Two: It's spelled dialogue.

Godspeed. DannyRedful 13:38, 13 June 2008 (EDT)


 * While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. DannyRedful 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Paper 180. All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)


 * So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek


 * With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper.  Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --DinsdaleP 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)


 * He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW!  You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately!  Move, move, move!  We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some evolutionists have insisted.--Aschlafly 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)


 * "You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. StatsMsn 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)


 * StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves.  At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--Aschlafly 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:
 * Be able to understand any of it?
 * Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?
 * Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --Leda 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)


 * I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. DanielB 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)


 * In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air.  I am not reassured by the withholding of data.


 * In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--Aschlafly 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)


 * "I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air." Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?


 * I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?


 * -- Carafe 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information."  You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--Aschlafly 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)


 * You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.


 * "(viii) Materials and Data Availability..." Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.


 * "To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must..." Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.


 * -- Carafe 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Scientific Scrutiny and Disclosure
I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.

Scientific scrutiny works like this:

-- Carafe 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)


 * This is it. This one is my favorite post.  Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter
Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008

Conservative 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of evolutionist fraud
I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable. In addition, we know know that Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview and he was actually an atheist. So given the history of deceit in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. Conservative 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)


 * As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?


 * -- Carafe 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)


 * I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a professional dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions.  This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data".  What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want.  This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. -- 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Recap
Carafe, TomMoore and DinsdaleP all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.

Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but evolutionists feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--Aschlafly 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)