Guest BFSleuth Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 When was the last time anything comparable to a new large primate on the North American continent was announced in a scientific journal? The Denisovan DNA discovery was published in the journal Nature. The first study to conclude there is a new species of hominid based on DNA analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 PT, when you say 'other legitimate way to publish', what exactly are you referring to? RayG Books, non-elite journal, non-peer-reviewed journal, pamphlet, internet, etc. She can also get tye word out at a conference, either by means of a paper presented at a pltform session, or a poster presented at a poster session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 So, something like the Upper Mississippi Club Journal of Paranormal Research? That would work for you, Pter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 What promise has she broken? How many times has she or her collaborators promised the paper will be published "soon"? A year ago thisnmonth wasn't John Green promised that 2011 would be the Year of the Sasquatch? How many conferences has she agreed to speak at, but not shown uo to? (At least one that I know of.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 "Soon" is a relative term, Pter. Reference Saskeptic's post from earlier today, noting that it took up to 2 years from date of first submission to publication in his own experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 jerrywayne, it would seem that you are in agreement with Mulder's fundamental point that there is evidence, although the evidence can be in dispute. Mulder is simply noting that with as much evidence (whether disputable or not) as we have gathered to date, that scientists would want to explore what kind of phenomena is creating said evidence. While you note that each piece of evidence can be disputed, Mulder has made a valid point. "Mulder's fundamental point that there is evidence" is non-controversial. However, if "the evidence can be in dispute" then it is not conclusive evidence. Stacking disputable evidence does not make the evidence then indisputable. Mulder does not appear to me to be suggesting that scientists naturally "would want" to look at so "much evidence" and he is baffled as to why they generally ignore the phenomena. Instead, he is making a stronger assertion that science must inescapably confront the evidence and if it does not it is structurally perverse. If your interpretation is correct, then yes I would agree with Mulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 It is exactly this situation that anonymous peer review handles poorly. That wouldn't surprise me. You've heard of guilt by association? I believe the association fallacy works in the other direction, too -- i.e., it is illogical to assume that a paper is good just because it is published in a good journal. I've never been big about judging a book by its cover. As to journal articles, the only two times I'm interested in knowing where it was published is when I am looking for them and when I am citing them. Your still needing high impact, you can't look like your dodging rigorous peer review. We keep hearing that a Journal like Nature would love to publish a paper like this, but if not, what method of publishing would you recomend? Then we could entertain what criticisms that deserves. Ketchum is free to choose where and how she wants to publish, and when, where, and what she wants to disclose about her study, but if she has selected the slow track and imposed a zone of silence about her, then she can expect criticism when she undertakes a PR campaign, and keeps making broken promises. If you read Dr. Ketchums statements in another way, you might see that she has no intention of allowing this process to carry on indefinately. Certainly not if there was no positive feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 jw, Concerning your position on the importance of negative evidence, I gather, because I've never seen you, I am to conclude you do not exist. Ecologically speaking, an observation of an orgsnism is nearly infinitely more informational than the absence of an observation. For example, if I spend a day observing a portion of our natural biosphere and report, "I observed no blue whales," can you descibe what portion of the biospher I spent the day in? No, you can't; I may have been in the Sahara (hint: no blues whales there) or on the Antarctic Ocean (blue whales live there, but I may just not have run into one that day). If I report "I saw a kangaroo," you can be certain I was in Australia. By the way, we should not be responsible for reading the minds of skeptics (or anyone else). People should take responsibility for saying what they mean and to accept the consequences for failing to do so. Pt Actually, you miss the point. Perhaps my fault. We know blue whales exist because they have been verified to exist. Same is true for kangaroos. And, I dare say, I am verifiable as well. Negative evidence relating to Bigfoot not only relates to not seeing it, it also relates to not finding it. So, in my Farmersville example, we have on one side most of the locals having no knowledge or evidence of Bigfoot, no tangible evidence of Bigfoot, and no Bigfoot itself verified to exist, and on the other side we have a fellow who says he saw a large man-like ape cross the road. Therefore, in this account, there is no evidence of Bigfoot outside the sighting claim. You may want to give more credence to the sighting than to that which lays outside the sighting. That's your preference. My point is that we are not reasonably obliged to give more weight to the sighting than to the other relevant facts at issue. I think is issue can be stated this way, using the example above. Advocates would treat the facts of no general local evidence of Bigfoot existing in and near Farmersville as if such facts were neutral and rendered irrelevant by the Bigfoot sighting. To the contrary, methinks the lack of local evidence has value in itself and directly relates to the issue of the validity of the sighting. Considering your last statement: Do you really think when someone says there is no evidence for Bigfoot they are saying there are no sightings, tracks, etc? Or are they saying the tracks and sightings, etc. are not real? If they take this position, somewhat harder than mine, I would think they are basically suggesting the evidence is disputable and therefore proves nothing. (Perhaps mere semantics.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 So, something like the Upper Mississippi Club Journal of Paranormal Research? That would work for you, Pter? It's not up to me to select the venue Ketchum publishes in. I just think her behavior should comport to the choice she has made. Have I not been clear on this? If not, what can I do to make myself clear? "Soon" is a relative term, Pter. Reference Saskeptic's post from earlier today, noting that it took up to 2 years from date of first submission to publication in his own experience. True, "soon" is relative. Did Saskeptic keep making promises of "soon" during his two-year wait? Did he agree to appear at conferences then back out during that time? Did he or anyone on his research team make of a given year being the Year of the [insert the subject of his paper here]? Did he open a FaceBook page to hype his anticipated publication? Did he ever discover a species and rally public support, prior to publication, for advocating protection of said species (without having a clue about its ecology)? Has Saskeptic or anyone on one of his teams ever made a presentation at a conference prior to the work being published? Has he ever had his team members sign nondisclosure agreements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Then again, was Saskeptic publishing a paper that was outed by one of his research partners and trying to deal with leaks from blogs and fan forums? Sas can correct me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think that would have been his experience. Did Dr. Ketchum "out" the pending report? Not to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was other people that outed it. I guess my question to you regarding the type of journal you feel should be adequate enough for her to publish is directed to your frustration with the length of time it takes to publish in a major science journal. Perhaps you think two years to too long? That's just the way it is in the world of publishing science papers. I was just trying to get a feel of what you think is an "adequate" journal or publication for your personal tastes. Furthermore, as a previously published scientist, why would Dr. Ketchum need to go "downstream" to a minor publication at this point, in order to satisfy the cravings of an internet forum. It doesn't make sense. If anything I think she would want to upgrade the level of journal prestige for a report as important as this one. Nature, for example, was the venue for publication of the Denisova DNA paper. That was for a hominid that lived as recently as 30,000 years ago and has shaken up the anthropology community. What do you think a paper that identifies a living new hominid would do? Do you think that should be published in the local high school paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Let's see. . . she cancelled one appearance at a conference that should would not have divulged any results or unveiled a paper at anyway. Due to business we know nothing about. People cancel all the time. You can take it personal and call it a broken promise, but whatever. She never made a promise of a firm release date, so she didn't break any promise that way, and she wasn't the one who said it was going to be "the year of the Sasquatch". Yes she has started a Facebook page, but she has just been pretty much asking for patience. Okay, she's thrown a couple of confident posts out there too, but nothing you could call a promise that has been broken yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 That is true, arizonaBF. I cannot recall any promises she made about a date for publication, nor would I expect her to know the date of publication right up until the journal contacts her to let her know. While some have argued that she has some sort of control of the situation, that is really not the case once the peer review process starts. The only control she has is to make resubmissions or improvements to the report as recommended by the reviewers and editors. Of course, she or any author has the right to "take control" by removing the submission and going to another journal, but why would anyone want to give up prematurely while it is in process? I would also add that the fact she has a FB page has IMHO absolutely no bearing on the situation. In case anyone hasn't noticed, there seems to be a lot of people that have FB pages. In her position it makes a lot of sense to be able to have a single point of communication for a fan base generated by this phenomenon created by the premature outing of the report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Your still needing high impact, you can't look like your dodging rigorous peer review. We keep hearing that a Journal like Nature would love to publish a paper like this, but if not, what method of publishing would you recomend? Then we could entertain what criticisms that deserves. Not my problem. As I said earlier, Ketchum is free to choose whatever venue she wants, but with that choice comes the responibilty for dealing with the consequences of that choice. If she would have never uttered a word about her paper, I'd be blissfully ignorant without having any criticism of her behavior. If you read Dr. Ketchums statements in another way, you might see that she has no intention of allowing this process to carry on indefinately. Certainly not if there was no positive feedback. I can't see how you arrive at such intention, but I hope you are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Then again, was Saskeptic publishing a paper that was outed by one of his research partners and trying to deal with leaks from blogs and fan forums? Sas can correct me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think that would have been his experience. Did Dr. Ketchum "out" the pending report? Not to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was other people that outed it. Are you refferring to the Substad (?) leak? I believe she made it known prior to that that she was working on a paper that would document the existence of bigfoot. But, I am not sure of the chronology either. Even if was was reacting to a leak her behavior is still odd. She could have kept silent. I guess my question to you regarding the type of journal you feel should be adequate enough for her to publish is directed to your frustration with the length of time it takes to publish in a major science journal. Perhaps you think two years to too long? That's just the way it is in the world of publishing science papers. I was just trying to get a feel of what you think is an "adequate" journal or publication for your personal tastes. Again, it is not my responsibility to choose a venue for Ketchum. My complaint is with her behavior. I've pointed out that she has several viable options. Those who have chugged the KoolAid don't want to hear the truth. Why is that? Furthermore, as a previously published scientist, why would Dr. Ketchum need to go "downstream" to a minor publication at this point, in order to satisfy the cravings of an internet forum. It doesn't make sense. If anything I think she would want to upgrade the level of journal prestige for a report as important as this one. Nature, for example, was the venue for publication of the Denisova DNA paper. That was for a hominid that lived as recently as 30,000 years ago and has shaken up the anthropology community. What do you think a paper that identifies a living new hominid would do? Do you think that should be published in the local high school paper? Did Ketchum previously publish in Nature? I doubt many veternarians have. And, who is saying she should publish in a minor journal? I have pointed out that as an option, and the validity of her paper will be judge by fair scientists on the merits, not on the venue. I guess I missed the the big anthropological uproar over the Denisovan. As an ecologist with an understanding of evolution,and the rarity of fossilization, it is hardly a surprise to learn that man coinhabited the planet with more species of hominids than the few extant. For the nth time, I don't care where Ketchum publishes, but a high school newspaper is an option. Actually, you miss the point. Perhaps my fault. We know blue whales exist because they have been verified to exist. Same is true for kangaroos. And, I dare say, I am verifiable as well. Negative evidence relating to Bigfoot not only relates to not seeing it, it also relates to not finding it. Fair enough. My example was specific to a typical biological survey. Allow me to extrapolate to species discovery. Throughout more than 200,000 years of human history there were no documented reports of extant coelacanths. Until 1938. A single piece of positive evidence infinitely outweighed more than 200 millenia of negative evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 I specified a " portion of our natural biosphere." That excludes zoos. But, thank you for playing. Thank YOU for your sarcasm and wit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts