Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   most scientific papers are wrong?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 61 of 113 (284632)
02-07-2006 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by NosyNed
02-07-2006 2:43 PM


have to be wrong, eh?
That's all you can say?
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.
MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich
The claim of a phylotypic stage is refuted by Richardson in this paper, which also details some of the errors and fraud of Haeckel's depictions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 02-07-2006 2:43 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NosyNed, posted 02-07-2006 4:01 PM randman has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 62 of 113 (284635)
02-07-2006 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by randman
02-07-2006 3:54 PM


Re: have to be wrong, eh?
The claim of a phylotypic stage is refuted by Richardson in this paper, which also details some of the errors and fraud of Haeckel's depictions.
Even this is wrong and not what the quotes say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 3:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 4:16 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 63 of 113 (284643)
02-07-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by NosyNed
02-07-2006 4:01 PM


Re: have to be wrong, eh?
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.
Read it again, ned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NosyNed, posted 02-07-2006 4:01 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Trixie, posted 02-07-2006 4:34 PM randman has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 64 of 113 (284649)
02-07-2006 4:28 PM


People, get back on topic!
Percy, in message 52, writes:
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?
I suggest all review the topic title, message 1, and the other early messages of this topic. Get on topic, or this one's getting closed down.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 65 of 113 (284657)
02-07-2006 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by randman
02-07-2006 4:16 PM


Can we cut to the chase here?
To demonstrate that "most" scientific papers are wrong, firstly you have to demonstrate that you have read over 50% of all the scientific papers published since the Year Dot . Secondly, you have to prove that the number which are wrong constitute over 50% of the total and you'll have to demonstrate why they're wrong.
A reasonable first step would be to provide for us the total number of scientific papers published since the Year Dot and the total number of scientific papers you have actually read.
Remember, by scientific papers, we're talking about the primary literature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 4:16 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Chiroptera, posted 02-07-2006 4:37 PM Trixie has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 113 (284658)
02-07-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Trixie
02-07-2006 4:34 PM


A quibble -- sorry
quote:
firstly you have to demonstrate that you have read over 50% of all the scientific papers published since the Year Dot .
Actually, a much smaller sample will suffice if it can be shown that it is a random sample. And well-known statistical methods can be used to give an estimate of how closely represents the whole population.
And that is the trick -- to select a truly random sample of the total.

"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 65 by Trixie, posted 02-07-2006 4:34 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Trixie, posted 02-07-2006 4:51 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 67 of 113 (284670)
02-07-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Chiroptera
02-07-2006 4:37 PM


Re: A quibble -- sorry
I deliberately left the sampling option out, since I felt the probability of a truly random sample would be much the same as a snowball's chance in Hell.
How many replicates of the experiment would be necessary to be sure of the truly random nature of the sampling? What sample size should we use to get a sample which accurately represents the population of scientific papers?
Bearing in mind that scientific journals have different impact factors (i.e. a pecking order) we would really need to carry out the sampling for each journal, since that might be a factor in determining the occurence of mistakes.
Not being a statistician, I welcome any input as to how we can design this study without skewing the sample, thus introducing bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Chiroptera, posted 02-07-2006 4:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by inkorrekt, posted 02-08-2006 10:23 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 68 of 113 (284671)
02-07-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by randman
02-07-2006 3:52 PM


Re: replication?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 3:52 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 02-08-2006 12:32 AM Percy has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 69 of 113 (284827)
02-08-2006 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Percy
02-07-2006 4:51 PM


Re: replication?
When you guys start coming clean about Haeckel instead of denying reality, then maybe it won't come up so much. But interestingly, many of you just cannot admit the truth of Haeckel's forgeries, false claims, etc,...and so, imo, play a role in perpetuating myths.
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 02-07-2006 4:51 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by nwr, posted 02-08-2006 12:50 AM randman has not replied
 Message 72 by Lithodid-Man, posted 02-08-2006 2:34 AM randman has not replied
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 02-08-2006 9:51 AM randman has not replied
 Message 76 by jar, posted 02-08-2006 12:26 PM randman has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 70 of 113 (284831)
02-08-2006 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
02-08-2006 12:32 AM


Re: replication?
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.
Have you ever heard of cold fusion? Or poly water? Or have you heard that coffee is good for your? Or that coffee is bad for you? Or that coffee is good for you?
All scientists speculate. They put out their bold hypotheses, with some supporting evidence. Then other scientists try to knock them down. The hypotheses that can't be knocked down might lead to important progress.
Often this all takes place between colleagues, and doesn't get into the research journals. But in some cases it does get published.
Your mistake is to assume that something devious is happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 02-08-2006 12:32 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by lfen, posted 02-08-2006 2:31 AM nwr has not replied
 Message 73 by lfen, posted 02-08-2006 2:46 AM nwr has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 71 of 113 (284835)
02-08-2006 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by nwr
02-08-2006 12:50 AM


Re: replication?
Your mistake is to assume that something devious is happening.
nwr,
But ... but ... Rman is never mistaken! because he only quotes the facts from the Holy Bible which is the absolute inerrant accurate explanation from the creator of the universe as understood by those who really know such as Randman himself!
If science agreed with Randman and the Bible, science would be correct. Since there are scientists who disagree with the Bible something devious is going on, and we all know that devious mastermind H is behind this.
So we have established that science is a devious plot by Satan through his agent H to subvert the word of God by godless logic and science.
Randman is only trying to protect the truth from the world wide plot of scientist to foist science, logic, evidence and all kinds of unchristian unbibical error off on people who should be going to the right church and being taught the right religion instead of being lured into all this unbibical science and logic folderol.
If there is no devious plot going on how come science is being taught and studied in all these universities and laboratories, huh?! If that isn't evidence of a devious satanic evolutionist plot then I don't know what is!
lfen, who wonders where the Spanish Inquistion is when we need it? (the one with John Cleese and Python crew)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nwr, posted 02-08-2006 12:50 AM nwr has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 72 of 113 (284836)
02-08-2006 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
02-08-2006 12:32 AM


Re: replication?
I will try to address this Haeckel issue in such a way that it remains on topic. Unfortunately I am repeating the answers to this that have been brought up over and over again. I am teaching a class on evolution this semester, so I printed out and read in detail the Richardson paper you keep bringing up.
First of all, have you read this paper? Because your summaries of it do not bear out the conclusions you keep mentioning. YES it is true that Haeckel exaggerated those characters most similar to support his recapitulation theory. And he was caught for it. By researchers at that time. But at no time has his 'fraud' been used in textbooks over and over again for 130 years. The science of embryology has been used. But they are NOT the same thing. Do you understand this? You are using every depiction of similar embryonic stages between taxa (which do exist) as evidence that 'evos' are perpetuating a fraud. No textbook is preaching recapitulation today or for 130 years. And if there is one they are seriously in error. They are teaching that there are homologies in embryonic development.
The Richardson paper is showing that there is great flexibility in embryonic morphology. That even though there are highly conserved developmental phases (such as development of somites, development of pharyngeal pouches) that these do not follow a strict phylogenetic pattern between craniate classes. It is not the purpose of the paper to discredit the science of embryonic homology. In fact it strongly supports this idea within classes. That is mammals do have a strongly conserved phylotype in the embryo, but that it differs from the like in fish, reptiles, etc.
You are confusing several completely different points:
1) Haeckel exaggerated the similarities between embryos (BAD on his part)
2) Haeckel advocated a recapitulation theory dependent upon a phylotypic phase (wrong, but good science and shown to be wrong by his peers as it should be)
3) Comparison of embryos of craniates show remarkable similarity. Texbooks may have used Haeckel's drawings because they were available but most did not. Those that did were in the wrong BUT Haeckel's drawings were not so far off as to be misleading. The texbook we use for our intro has photographs of the same assemblages and the conclusions students draw is the same. Have you looked at those?
4) All craniates go through similar developmental phases, and those are tied to gene homologies. What differs is that those phases express different genes at different times and those traits may be linked to morphological characters of the adults. What is important is that ALL craniates have seven pharyngeal pounches. The first pair of those pouches grow into the jaws of most craniates (but not the lampreys and hagfish). The posterior pairs become the gills arches of most fishes and the earbones and other structures in tetrapods.
5) (And this is most important to you Randman) Recapitulation is not the same as embryonic homology. Haeckel's theory, Haeckel's 'fraud' has not been presented as fact for 130 years. Haeckel's work makes him the father of embryology even though we can say "shame" for the biased drawings. Recapitulation was falsified in Haeckel's time, the science of embryology and the concept of a phylotypic phase remained as a valid topic of discussion.
Now to insure this is on topic. I find it very amusing Randman that you are so quick to slam all 'evo' papers as propaganda and fraud as in the OP. But you cite (at least the closing paragraphs, I still am unsure if you read it or if you did if you understood it) the Richardson paper as if it is some kind of Gospel. This paper is very intriguing, and very supportive of the idea that embryology supports evolution. It is suggesting only that selective factors of later ontological phases may be reflected in embryos. Do you see the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 02-08-2006 12:32 AM randman has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 73 of 113 (284838)
02-08-2006 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by nwr
02-08-2006 12:50 AM


Re: replication?
Your mistake is to assume that something devious is happening.
nwr,
But ... but ... Rman is never mistaken! because he only quotes the facts from the Holy Bible which is the absolute inerrant accurate explanation from the creator of the universe as understood by those who really know such as Randman himself!
If science agreed with Randman and the Bible, science would be correct. Since there are scientists who disagree with the Bible something devious is going on, and we all know that devious mastermind H is behind this.
So we have established that science is a devious plot by Satan through his agent H to subvert the word of God by godless logic and science.
Randman is only trying to protect the truth from the world wide plot of scientist to foist science, logic, evidence and all kinds of unchristian unbibical error off on people who should be going to the right church and being taught the right religion instead of being lured into all this unbibical science and logic folderol.
If there is no devious plot going on how come science is being taught and studied in all these universities and laboratories, huh?! If that isn't evidence of a devious satanic evolutionist plot then I don't know what is!
lfen, who wonders where the Spanish Inquistion is when we need it? (the one with John Cleese and Python crew)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nwr, posted 02-08-2006 12:50 AM nwr has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 74 of 113 (284839)
02-08-2006 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
02-07-2006 2:42 PM


Re: RM wrong still
Sorry, please forgive me Admins, but I cannot help myself.
quote:
1.Do you deny he faked his data?
I admit he exaggerated his drawings
quote:
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?
No, I have seen no evidence that this happened.
quote:
3. Do you deny that recapitulation theory, also taught, is wrong?
I know that recapitulation is wrong. I deny that is taught anywhere in any legitimate institution.
quote:
4. How about the claims of the phylotypic stage, which was based on Haeckel's data according to Richardson in his 1997 study?
Completely irrelevant. May or may not be true not not important to the ToE. As stated in my previous post you probably haven't read this paper or at least did not understand it.

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 75 of 113 (284894)
02-08-2006 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
02-08-2006 12:32 AM


Re: replication?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 02-08-2006 12:32 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024