TimB Posted August 2, 2011 Posted August 2, 2011 That's specifically what I would call a veterinarian with a DNA lab. A scientist. I'm glad we are in agreement on that. Thanks for hammering that one point home! Tim
Hairy Man Posted August 2, 2011 Posted August 2, 2011 I think you are misreading the site. There is no requirement for an undergraduate degree to enter the vet school. She apparently did not have one. There are graduate (MS and PhD) programs in the vet school http://vetmed.tamu.e...issions-process Dr. Ketchum did not do those programs. Again, if you don't believe me, call her and ask her. The word "doctoral" on her website does not mean she has a Ph.D. She's a vet with a lab business. She has to know some science. If you want to call that a being a scientist, you are free to do so. All graduate degrees require an undergraduate degree beforehand - you know that. I don't need to ask her anything. How do you know what education she did before entering the DVM at A&M? And again, a "doctoral" doesn't have to mean Ph.D. - it means a course of study - but again you know that. Yes, someone knowing the method of science qualifies as a scientist - that's the rule. You seem to me to want to disqualify her before knowing the results. How about just letting the results speak for themselves? They are either valid or not valid - credentials be damned.
gigantor Posted August 2, 2011 Admin Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) wrong thread... sorry. Edited August 2, 2011 by gigantor
Guest Posted August 2, 2011 Posted August 2, 2011 you have your opinion. I am more aware than you of the occasional bad apple; science however has better methods of preventing, detecting, and correcting problems than do other fields. I think perhaps you do not have a realistic perception of the tiny proportion of problems relative to the immense amount of scientific research. (what British scientist specifically are you referring to?) Human nature being what it is, no profession is perfect. Not a single one, a whole frakking LAB of them, the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/global-warming-fraud-and-the-future-of-science_by-j-r-dunn/ The later article also mentions the Korean biologist, Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, who was later discovered to have faked all his research, though it correctly states his work was in cloning "higher animals" and stem cell lines, not human beings per se.
Guest slimwitless Posted August 2, 2011 Posted August 2, 2011 If the paper stands up to peer review it won't matter if Dr. Ketchum is a greeter at Walmart. She will have accomplished something other scientists could only dream of - the discovery of a new species/subspecies of living hominids. Yes, the safe bet is to stick with the status quo on this one. Me? I guess I'm in a gambling mood. It'd be nice to be around for something interesting.
southernyahoo Posted August 2, 2011 Posted August 2, 2011 That's good news. I recently stumbled on the JREF forums. I wonder how they'll handle it if this actually pans out. I'd like to see them fund their champion Distotell in a paralell study of the evidence. When it's all done, maybe we'll serve crow at their banquet.
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 2, 2011 Posted August 2, 2011 That's good news. I recently stumbled on the JREF forums. I wonder how they'll handle it if this actually pans out. What I want to know is why certain people on this forum don't spend more time there...
bipedalist Posted August 2, 2011 BFF Patron Posted August 2, 2011 I think this forum is pretty well moderated compared to some others that I know and I'm sure the fair airing of all sides of this Ketchum analysis will be heavily and fairly moderated.....on the other hand....not going there.
Hairy Man Posted August 2, 2011 Posted August 2, 2011 I think you are misreading the site. There is no requirement for an undergraduate degree to enter the vet school. She apparently did not have one. There are graduate (MS and PhD) programs in the vet school http://vetmed.tamu.e...issions-process Dr. Ketchum did not do those programs. Again, if you don't believe me, call her and ask her. The word "doctoral" on her website does not mean she has a Ph.D. She's a vet with a lab business. She has to know some science. If you want to call that a being a scientist, you are free to do so. I just talked with her. She has a B.S. in Vet Science and a Doctorate in Vet Medicine from Texas A&M. She is both a scientist and a doctor. 2
BobbyO Posted August 2, 2011 SSR Team Posted August 2, 2011 What I want to know is why certain people on this forum don't spend more time there... They spend enough, don't worry about that..
Guest Posted August 2, 2011 Posted August 2, 2011 If the paper stands up to peer review it won't matter if Dr. Ketchum is a greeter at Walmart. She will have accomplished something other scientists could only dream of - the discovery of a new species/subspecies of living hominids. Yes, the safe bet is to stick with the status quo on this one. Me? I guess I'm in a gambling mood. It'd be nice to be around for something interesting. Well said.
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 2, 2011 Posted August 2, 2011 I just talked with her. She has a B.S. in Vet Science and a Doctorate in Vet Medicine from Texas A&M. She is both a scientist and a doctor. From one Hairy to another, you rock.
southernyahoo Posted August 2, 2011 Posted August 2, 2011 Another thing which concerned me about this discussion is the following remark about Dr. Ketchum: "but is she is a self employed for profit businessperson" Now I can't read the mind that made the remark, so I can only try to figure out why it was offered by sort of deductive reasoning. I figure the options are: A. Such a description is an admirable distinction, and if so, Dr. Ketchum is being paid a compliment. B. It is a subtle but disparaging remark (as in, "She's just in it for the money and has no integrity because of that motive", for one hypothetical example) in which case Dr. Ketchum is being criticized. or C. It is irrelevent to her capablity of conducting a DNA study, and the one making the observation likes to say irrelevent things (which does make us wonder about the reasoning capacity of one who offers irrelevent information to a discussion). Or maybe D. It is a sly inuendo which was hopefully intended to discredit by implied suggestion rather than direct criticism? Not sure which. But any way you look at it, it doesn't seem like quality dialogue to help us reach an informed and well-reasoned conclusion of the matter. Sorta looks like a cheap shot, in my opinion. If I'm wrong, I welcome anybody who wants to correct me. Thanks, Bill The "for profit" part is definately aimed at the legitimacy of her work, since real science doesn't cost anything.
Recommended Posts