The Ketchum Report

[Guest Jodie]

If/when the Ketchum report is released, I hope a new thread will be started so we don't have to wade through all this speculation.

I feel that whatever the results are, our friendly neighborhood skeptics will only tear them down and try to discredit the study. Is this the goal of skepticism? Why is it okay for the skeptics to use hearsay to make negative assmptions about the study yet mock Lindsay's equally unsubstantiated hearsay?

Sorry to be so negative but these things have disturbed me for a long time. I think it's the mocking tone that bothers me the most. I am not a blind believer but mocking others is really uncalled for in an intelligent discussion, IMO.

There are only about 3 forum members that I can think of off of the top of my head that use that mocking tone. If you actually fact check what they say, you might find that they are sloppy doing their homework. Then there is always the IGNORE button that comes in rather handy.

[Guest parnassus]

There is a website called Embargo Watch and Retraction Watch. I learned a little about how these journals handle their authors mistakes. I'm afraid Parn will have to explain the rest to me. Help Parn!!!

dog,

Lindsay writes:

We recently learned that there is an article under embargo with the keywords Darwin, evolution and animals. The embargo is set to lift on Sunday, January 22, 2012, in two days. This could possibly be the Ketchum study, but we don’t know for sure.

a little snooping reveals this embargoed article, which fits Lindsay's description, and is the only one which does:

Channels:

Evolution and Darwin, Nature/Animals

Keywords:

Evolution

EMBARGOED

A reporter's PressPass is required to access this story until the embargo expires on 1/22/2012 7:05 PM EST

Embargo will expire:

1/22/2012 7:05 PM EST

Released to reporters:

1/20/2012 1:25 PM EST

A little more snooping on the website reveals that the article is from Ohio State; here is the press release (in part):

Channels:

Behavior/Psychology, Evolution and Darwin

COLUMBUS, Ohio – For students to accept the theory of evolution, an intuitive “gut feeling†may be just as important as understanding the facts, according to a new study.

In an analysis of the beliefs of biology teachers, researchers found that a quick intuitive notion of how right an idea feels was a powerful driver of whether or not students accepted evolution—often trumping factors such as knowledge level or religion.

“The whole idea behind acceptance of evolution has been the assumption that if people understood it – if they really knew it – they would see the logic and accept it,†said David Haury, co-author of the new study and associate professor of education at Ohio State University.

.....

The researchers framed a study to determine whether intuitive reasoning could help explain why some people are more accepting of evolution than others. The study, published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, included 124 pre-service biology teachers at different stages in a standard teacher preparation program at two Korean universities.

First, the students answered a standard set of questions designed to measure their overall acceptance of evolution. These questions probed whether students generally believed in the main concepts and scientific findings that underpin the theory.

...

the embargo may been violated: here is a press story dated yesterday afternoon, four hours after the press release, about the article:

Gut feelings may trump good old-fashioned facts, and even religious beliefs, when it comes to accepting the theory of evolution, new research suggests.

"The whole idea behind acceptance of evolution has been the assumption that if people understood it, if they really knew it, they would see the logic and accept it," study co-author David Haury, an associate professor of education at Ohio State University, said in a statement.

...

nice homework, eh?

p.

Edited January 22, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest slimwitless]

Evolution, Darwin, Nature and Animals aren't keywords I would necessarily associate with a Bigfoot DNA study. That wasn't a very good guess, IMO.

The embargo rumor is based on what Ed Smith meant when referring to "what transpired last week". I'd love to be wrong but there's no reason to think this is coming out in the next few days. The Steven Stuefort Facebook post is probably the most intriguing morsel but he commented on Lindsay's blog that he "was not really referring to a time line for release" when he posted the "BF DNA is about to hit the fan."

Edited January 22, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest Jodie]

nice homework, eh?

p.

Today you get an A+, keep up the good work.

[Guest parnassus]

Today you get an A+, keep up the good work.

Well, you just let me know anytime I don't come up to your high standards.

Edited January 22, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest]

You must have a press login to see that info. Makes it a bit easier.

[Guest Jodie]

I always do Parn, you are one of my favorites (I want say what kind of favorite since it's against the rules).

[Guest COGrizzly]

I always do Parn, you are one of my favorites (I want say what kind of favorite since it's against the rules).

Thanks for cheering me up.

[Guest]

Then there is always the IGNORE button that comes in rather handy.

Thanks for the good suggestion. I'd hate to think I would have to do that, I am a mature adult after all and opposing opinions don't bother me in general. I try to avoid negativity as a rule though...who needs it?

[Guest Luckyfoot]

A swallow could move the coconut, maybe two. If you need something larger, perhaps the African Swallow as it migrates moves it..

Perhaps it has something to do with airspeed velocity and whether said swallow is African or European. Per MP;

Edited January 22, 2012 by Luckyfoot

[Guest MikeG]

I feel that whatever the results are, our friendly neighborhood skeptics will only tear them down and try to discredit the study. Is this the goal of skepticism? Why is it okay for the skeptics to use hearsay to make negative assmptions about the study yet mock Lindsay's equally unsubstantiated hearsay?

This is bit like the old joke "I thought he was going to hit me, officer, so I hit him back first".

Let's wait and see, shall we, before we castigate people for something they haven't done yet. At the moment, the skeptics are right, we don't have irrefutable evidence. The thinking skeptics will, I'm sure, be the first to assess the quality of any new evidence, and wouldn't be so daft as to start a fight they know they can't win if the evidence is strong enough. A close reading of most of their positions makes it very clear that many of them don't rule out the possibility that sasquatch exists.......they merely say we don't have good evidence, and that there are alternative explanations for the evidence we think we have.

The mindless "they-don't-exist-so-there-can't-be-any-evidence" skeptics will slink away quietly if there is an overwhelming body of evidence against their position. The beauty of internet fora is that participants are typically anonymous, so, who knows, the odd die-hard skeptic may disappear from view around the same time as a newby joins taking a very different position, albeit with an identical computer address. I'm just guessing, of course.

Mike

Edited January 22, 2012 by MikeG

[Guest]

Viewing some of his other writings on different topics, I don't put much faith into what Robert Lindsay says. I expect a fair amount of nature articles have those key words. Cart --------------------------- Horse

I just wanted to post it to show people that might be interested, kind of like lottery numbers,once in a while he gets something right, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. Ketchum's posts are the ones that are interesting, just the way she has so much confidence in what she says. It just does not fit the M.O. of a hoaxer. The only way out now is if she came out and said she has lost her marbles and others would have to do the same. I can't see that happening.

Edited January 22, 2012 by zigoapex

[Guest]

This is bit like the old joke "I thought he was going to hit me, officer, so I hit him back first".

Let's wait and see, shall we, before we castigate people for something they haven't done yet. At the moment, the skeptics are right, we don't have irrefutable evidence. The thinking skeptics will, I'm sure, be the first to assess the quality of any new evidence, and wouldn't be so daft as to start a fight they know they can't win if the evidence is strong enough. A close reading of most of their positions makes it very clear that many of them don't rule out the possibility that sasquatch exists.......they merely say we don't have good evidence, and that there are alternative explanations for the evidence we think we have.

The mindless "they-don't-exist-so-there-can't-be-any-evidence" skeptics will slink away quietly if there is an overwhelming body of evidence against their position. The beauty of internet fora is that participants are typically anonymous, so, who knows, the odd die-hard skeptic may disappear from view around the same time as a newby joins taking a very different position, albeit with an identical computer address. I'm just guessing, of course.

Mike

There will be some hard headed, no way I could wrong about anything Skeptics that are not going to let go and say that she really isn't qualified( they already injected that one) to conduct a meaningful study, or find an infraction that she or other similar studies had made, Then use it like a poor card player would use a derringer in a losing hand of poker .

Edited January 22, 2012 by zigoapex

[Guest]

Thank you Parn and excellent homework indeed. You are an A+ student. These journals etc are so far out of my realm that I did some research and I ended up thinking "what the h*ll does all this mean". You sir are a good detective. Thank you for taking the time to clarify and I appreciate your time.

[Guest slimwitless]

Parn has mad Google skillz.

You can also look for embargoed articles here.