southernyahoo Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 As an author I'd work to get something published; as an editor, I'd work to prevent something from being published. I think that was the gist of my statement. What's the relevance here? The intense scrutiny that a tough editor might place on a paper doesn't mean that he's "scared" of what's in the paper. Nothing is scary about it, if the data are reliable and the analysis robust. That's the point. If it's all good, then that's what's true, and that's what gets published. If the data are unreliable and the analysis weak, then there's nothing scary either - the paper should rightfully be rejected. You seem to be conflating "scared scientists" with "people who like to make danged sure something is correct before they let it take up any space in their journal." I'll rest this discussion for now Sas, it will be easier to understand post publication I expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I see a rather large difference between "work to prevent something from being published" and "the intense scrutiny that a tough editor might place on a paper". You might be missing the context of the discussion alluded to. In that thread, I had presented some info on how competition for journal space leads to the vast majority of manuscripts being rejected. I am an associate editor for a well-known journal in my field. We don't get crap submitted for publication. We get well-designed studies, carried out by professionals who generally are doing everything they can to make the paper flawless before we ever get to see it in the editorial office. Our job as the people who decide what gets published and what doesn't means that we're often looking for things to be wrong with a manuscript. You have to do this if your goal is to reject dozens of great papers every year. It's the ones that survive that gauntlet of criticism that make it into print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I don't understand why you think the tracks above are not repeatable? We may very well find such tracks again. Furthermore, we can and do find tracks just like these on the sea floor and mudflats all around the world and quite often with worms still in them. There is nothing unverifiable about them. Bigfoot footprints have quite often been hoaxed over the years and tall tales are told around the world. This is also verifiable. There is no undeniable evidence for bigfoot making these tracks or being responsible for these tales. This by itself does not mean Bigfoot does not exist but the prints and stories do not mean that bigfoot does exist either (to those who have not seen one that is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Now I understand, Mr. Skeptic- or is it Sas? Similar to the teacher hiring method in my area- the administrators look for any mistype or inconsistency to reject a portfolio to winnow the list down. They like to interview 4 people for any position- they get 70-250 applications for each position posted. I always wonder how many budding teachers never teach because of this. Do you have a feel for how much good quality information in your field never sees the light of day? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I don't understand why you think the tracks above are not repeatable? We may very well find such tracks again. Furthermore, we can and do find tracks just like these on the sea floor and mudflats all around the world and quite often with worms still in them. There is nothing unverifiable about them. Sea Worms of that size? The fossil track is huge. Bigfoot footprints have quite often been hoaxed over the years and tall tales are told around the world. This is also verifiable. There is no undeniable evidence for bigfoot making these tracks or being responsible for these tales. This by itself does not mean Bigfoot does not exist but the prints and stories do not mean that bigfoot does exist either (to those who have not seen one that is). All sorts of things are hoaxed, that has nothing to do with whether a particular example is real or not. It just means you have to carefully examine the evidence. Even Parns example... How many injuries have been faked to get back at someone? There is no undeniable evidence yet either way. Maybe soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Do you have a feel for how much good quality information in your field never sees the light of day? I think it's very little. There are many journals to choose from, and they aren't all as demanding as Science or Nature. I think I've got one manuscript that I thought was pretty good but could never get published. I think I tried with 3 journals and then just gave up on it because I had too much newer stuff to work on. But there are journals to which I could send it today who'd be happy to publish it. (Don't worry - it's not a cancer cure or anything important like that.) But, I do have the editor's letters and the reviewer's comments from every one of those rejections . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Indiefoot: "Sea Worms of that size? The fossil track is huge" Is there a definitive reason they could not be huge? The sea sports many enormous invertebrates much larger than we see on a regular basis. There is no real barrier to gigantism in invertebrates in an aquatic environment. I think the idea of a giant worm in the sea where we already have giant squids, giant clams, giant sea scorpions (in the fossil record) etc. is perfectly reasonable. "All sorts of things are hoaxed, that has nothing to do with whether a particular example is real or not. It just means you have to carefully examine the evidence. Even Parns example... How many injuries have been faked to get back at someone? There is no undeniable evidence yet either way. Maybe soon" The possibilty of a hoax is higher if there have been hoaxes before and they need to be ruled out. I am not being pedantic about this. It's standard and obvious. Just like all those injuries. insurance companies and judges have to ascertain they're real before awarding anything to the claimant. There is no undeniable evidence at all yet, true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 antfoot, The point of the original post was to point out that even etraordinary claims of prehistoric Giant Sea Worms are accepted on trace fossil evidence. More than likely there were big assed worms at tha time. There is a lot of trace evidence that points to the existance an unknown primate inhabiting wilderness areas in North America. I don't think it's all fake or mis id'ed bear tracks yet there are few in the field who are taking a careful look at that evidence. My guess would be that the reasons are primarily financial. There aren't many grants available to study unknown primate species in North America and too few scientific gamblers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Yes but I'm saying because of the prevalence of hoaxing and tall tale telling the bigfoot prints and recordings and eyewitness accounts require more vetting than a worm track would. Who goes around trying to fake worm tracks in stone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Vetting fine, healthy scepticism sure, careful examination great, wholesale dismisal not so good. It has been argued that no footprints can be trusted because of hoaxing, I say that is an intellectually lazy way to dismiss evidence and not have to give it a fair appraisal. Many of the opinions on evidence I see presented are lacking any real analysis, JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 As an author I'd work to get something published; as an editor, I'd work to prevent something from being published. I think that was the gist of my statement. What's the relevance here? The intense scrutiny that a tough editor might place on a paper doesn't mean that he's "scared" of what's in the paper. Nothing is scary about it, if the data are reliable and the analysis robust. That's the point. If it's all good, then that's what's true, and that's what gets published. If the data are unreliable and the analysis weak, then there's nothing scary either - the paper should rightfully be rejected. You seem to be conflating "scared scientists" with "people who like to make danged sure something is correct before they let it take up any space in their journal." Yes, clearly there are no human factors at work in science. Wikipedia: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Parnassus,I think you are wrong, The notion that tracks can't be taken seriously because a few instances of fakery have been uncovered is silly and a very solid example of the Appeal to Probability. Along with photos, films, videos and many other types of evidence that have come forward. Your legal reference doesn't hold water either. Why do you think prior offences are seldom allowed to go before a jury. Because it is an appeal to probabiliy. JMO, of course. I would surmise that you are in a minority if you think that only a few tracks have been faked. If even one track is authentic, then bigfoot exists, and only a minority of people believe that. Your reasoning is faulty. I certainly believe that all tracks are either faked or mistaken. Sorry but your thinking about my spousal abuse case is clearly just wrong. Offenses that show a pattern of conduct are admissible in cases of domestic violence. Here is the Minnesota case law, and it refers to Federal rules as well. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 404( restricts the admission of evidence concerning a party's prior bad acts. The rule is similar to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(. In State v. Barnslater, --- N.W.2d ----, 2010 WL 3220020 (Minn. App. Aug. 17, 2010), the Minnesota Court of Appeals illustrated the importance of an exception to Rule 404 that applies to evidence of prior domestic abuse. William Barnslater, convicted of "engaging in a pattern of harassing conduct" and of violating an order of protection concerning his former romantic partner (whose name is abbreviated in the opinion as "J.B."), argued on appeal that the trial court wrongly allowed the victim to testify about Barnslater's prior abuse of her and of her adult daughter. In one incident described at trial, "Barnslater pushed J.B. to the floor, grabbed J.B.‘s daughter by the throat, and held J.B.‘s daughter so that her feet dangled above the floor. Based on this episode, Barnslater was convicted of fifth-degree domestic assault." Barnslater, at 2-3 [pin cites refer to PDF of opinion]. Minn. Rule of Evid. 404( provides: Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. In a criminal prosecution, such evidence shall not be admitted unless (1) the prosecutor gives notice of its intent to admit the evidence consistent with the rules of criminal procedure; (2) the prosecutor clearly indicates what the evidence will be offered to prove; (3) the other crime, wrong, or act and the participation in it by a relevant person are proven by clear and convincing evidence; (4) the evidence is relevant to the prosecutor’s case; and (5) the probative value of the evidence is not outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice to the defendant. ... If the prior crime, wrong, or act was "similar conduct by the accused against the victim of domestic abuse, or against other family or household members," then the evidence is more easily admissible. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 634.20, Evidence of similar conduct by the accused against the victim of domestic abuse, or against other family or household members, is admissible unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. “Similar conduct†includes, but is not limited to, evidence of domestic abuse, violation of an order for protection ...; violation of a harassment restraining order ...; or [offenses involving stalking, harassment, and obscene telephone calls] .... In State v. McCoy, 682 N.W.2d 153, 161 (Minn. 2004), the Supreme Court of Minnesota held that evidence admitted under Section 634.20 is admissible "without [the trial court] first determining that the evidence was clear and convincing." Here, Barnslater was charged with engaging in a pattern of harassing conduct after he repeatedly bothered the victim, including calling her and her friends and even burgling her house. Barnslater, at 3-4. Because his prior conduct involved similar acts against J.B. and her daughter, the appeals court stated, "W]e need not address Barnslater's arguments that the notice and other requirements of Minn. R. Evid. 404( were not met." Id. at 11 n.3. The court explained that the availability of Section 634.20 depends on "whether the accused‘s underlying conduct constitutes domestic abuse ..., not on whether the particular offense ... charged" was a domestic abuse crime. Id. at 8. Accordingly, because the prosecution charged Barnslater with crimes against J.B., evidence of his prior domestic abuse of J.B. and her daughter was admissible regardless of what specific crime was charged in this case. Note that the Federal Rules of Evidence contains rules similar to Section 634.20 concerning evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases and evidence of similar crimes in child molestation cases. For a student comment advocating the adoption of rules similar to Minnesota's, see Sarah J. Lee, The Search for the Truth: Admitting Evidence of Prior Abuse in Cases of Domestic Violence, 20 U. Haw. L. Rev. 221, 240 (1998); see also Douglas E. Beloof & Joel Shapiro, Let the Truth Be Told: Proposed Hearsay Exceptions to Admit Domestic Violence Victims' Out of Court Statements as Substantive Evidence, 11 Colum. J. Gender & L. 1 (2002). - Ben Trachtenberg August 18, 2010 p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Argumentum ad populum immediately precedes accusation of "faulty reasoning". Priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I would surmise that you are in a minority if you think that only a few tracks have been faked. If even one track is authentic, then bigfoot exists, and only a minority of people believe that. Your reasoning is faulty. I certainly believe that all tracks are either faked or mistaken. What I "think" is that very few tracks have been shown to have been faked, many have been assumed to have been faked. A very small minority give the question of whether Bigfoot exists a thought at all, one way or the other, would be my guess. Though, I have no more way of knowing that than you do. The only poll I'm aware of was in the PNW and it showed the exact opposite of your statement if memory serves. Sorry but your thinking about my spousal abuse case is clearly just wrong. Offenses that show a pattern of conduct are admissible in cases of domestic violence. Here is the Minnesota case law, and it refers to Federal rules as well. I think you are special pleading bigfoot in with domestic abuse and drawing a parallel. The example you gave is a very narrow window of exeption to the vast majority of prior offence exlusion. p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted February 7, 2012 Admin Share Posted February 7, 2012 Argumentum ad populum immediately precedes accusation of "faulty reasoning". Priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts