Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

Boy for a minute there I thought we were all going to be required to have published scientific papers or we couldn't play. I got a ribbon at a science fair, does that count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray:

Is there a reason you don't understand what a Public Relations person does and does not do, when you asked above:

"But who is Sally Ramey? Does she teach at the college? Where did she teach prior to GGC? Does she teach at all? What papers has she had published in scientific journals? What qualifications and experience does she have with regards to DNA?"

"Sally Ramey is the Public Relations person behind Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA study."

A PR person does not need to teach, does not need to publish papers, and doesn't even have to have any experience with DNA.

A PR person is an professional intermediary between someone and the media, the press, the public.

What part of that do you apparently not understand?

Bill

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have spelled it out from the beginning by connecting the two entities.

Public relations = the practice of managing the flow of information between an organization and its publics. (Wiki page).

Peer review = a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. (Wiki page).

Can we agree that these are the generally understood meanings for the respective terms?

So yes, a public relations person is expected to engage in public relations, and should not expected to teach, publish/grade papers, or have expertise with DNA matters. Someone qualified to do peer review within a relevant field however, would be expected to do those kinds of things.

So I guess what I'm not understanding, is the correlation between public relations and peer review contained within this statement:

You can also trust what Sally Ramey says about peer review and other paper related things, she is part of our team, helping with general information and press.

Why should I trust what she says about peer review? Because she's Sally Ramey? Because she does public relations? Because she's part of their team? Because she's helping with general information and press? What aspect of public relations gives her more insight than someone like Saskeptic, for example, a person who actually engages in the peer review process?

Maybe I'm looking through my a-hat again, but when things need to be sugar-coated so the public swallows them easier, they call in a public relations person, which is exactly why I don't trust her. And lest you think I'm singling out bigfoot proponents, by ~they~, I mean corporations, public service providers, or whoever.

RayG

Edited by RayG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

You can also trust what Sally Ramey says about peer review and other paper related things, she is part of our team, helping with general information and press.

Why should I trust what she says about peer review? Because she's Sally Ramey? Because she does public relations? Because she's part of their team? Because she's helping with general information and press? What aspect of public relations gives her more insight than someone like Saskeptic, for example, a person who actually engages in the peer review process?

Ray, it was just an off the cuff comment regarding a person who has been writing this & that on her FB page for the benefit of people who have been wondering if this Sally Lady and what she has actually been saying, is actually correct and has MK's approval that it was in the ball park.

If you don't want to believe or acknowledge this, then don't, it's really that simple.

But i will say you've gone WAY over the top when there really isn't any need to on this Sally stuff, it was simply just an off the cuff remark by MK about a person who has been writing stuff on her FB page, that's it..;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're probably right, it's late at night, and I'm criticizing someone for not being concise, when I wasn't exactly being very clear myself.

I'm not a scientist though. And I'm not a scientist promising big news to bigfooters who are haning on my every word.

Let's just say I don't trust her, you, me, anyone.

RayG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

Let's just say I don't trust her, you, me, anyone.

RayG

I'm not a million miles behind you..;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, Mulder --

Here in Texas I know quite a few folks who do not think humans are animals. They believe the human being is a separate creation and set apart from the animal kingdom. This is a popular religious position.

I'm not inquiring as to your religious beliefs. I'm just curious if you hold to the idea that humans are not animals, not primates, and so forth.

That is a fair question, and an interesting one. It's also one I am uncertain how to answer w/o getting into verboten topics for this forum.

I'll try it this way, and apologies if it comes out inexact or clumsy: it is scientifically correct to refer to humans as "animals" as they are not plants, nor germs, etc. It is also scientifically correct to say that the type of "animal" that humans are is a higher primate (where humans are placed on the "tree of life").

That said, I reject the implications of the word "animal" as applicable to humans as regards issues of primacy of interests when balancing the needs of man vs those of "nature", and of relative primacy of moral value.

Put another way, I reject the way of thinking espoused by many "animal rights groups" (PETA, et al) that "worm=insect=fish=bird=man", where there is no distinction morally or with respect to "rights" among them. Humans are a unique and distinct type of life.

Best I can do...hope it helps.

And for the sake of argument -- if we find throwback neanderthals living in our remote areas, you would not consider them part of humanity?

I have to answer that in two ways:

1) Strictly speaking, no. They are not us, so they are not "part of humanity". Interfertility, by the way, does not to me imply any measure of biological equivilancy, no more so than the case of the lion/tiger or horse/donkey.

2) If, as I suspect, you are asking a question of relative moral value and worth. I would also have to say "no, they are not part of humanity" with the caveat that I would not agree with the indiscriminate abuse/expoitation of them any more than I would casual abuse of/cruelty towards any other life form.

Again putting it another way: if it came down to an "us or them" situation, I would vote for us 100% without hesitation. I would not, however, be in favor of wholesale exploitation of them for casual purposes (sport hunting, etc).

Mulder, you don't even seem to know what a hominid is. Even orangutans are hominids.

Which was the point I was making, more or less. Hominids are a broad category that includes but is not specifically referring to humans.

So I guess what I'm not understanding, is the correlation between public relations and peer review contained within this statement:

You can also trust what Sally Ramey says about peer review and other paper related things, she is part of our team, helping with general information and press.

She (Sally) is referring to the peer review process, not the science of the peer review. At least that's my read on it. She doesn't need to be able to DO dna analaysis in order to in general terms describe the process OF dna analysis.

W

hy should I trust what she says about peer review? Because she's Sally Ramey? Because she does public relations? Because she's part of their team? Because she's helping with general information and press? What aspect of public relations gives her more insight than someone like Saskeptic, for example, a person who actually engages in the peer review process?

See above.

Maybe I'm looking through my a-hat again,

You said it, I didn't.

but when things need to be sugar-coated so the public swallows them easier, they call in a public relations person,

A non-cynical way of saying that would be when things need to be expressed clearly in terms understandable by and relatable to a mass audience, they call in a public relations person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest exnihilo

Correct. Anatomically modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens are anatomically modern humans. No one has disputed that. The thing you seem want to dispute is the fact that Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo habilis, etc. are also human. Homo means human in biosystematics.

Correct, though I would add the caveat that Homo means "man" in Latin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest exnihilo

Mulder, I think if you are suggesting that there is a meaningful ethical distinction to be had between fellow members of Hss and the rest of the hominid line, then I believe you are correct. However I think you are virtually alone if you think the term "human" denotes Hss only.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/human

hu·man (hyoomacr.gifprime.gifmschwa.gifn)

n.

1.
A member of the genus
Homo
and especially of the species
H. sapiens.

2.
A person:
the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

There's also one in the southeast closer to floresiensis, news flash. Now, let's get on to unstitching

that curveball.....one stitch at a time......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be okay with having one to put in a zoo. I'd have to see how he or she behaves in a hotel room before coming to a decision on how they should be housed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...