southernyahoo Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Perhaps this helps get my point over better, using "evidence of absence" instead of "negative evidence": http://en.wikipedia....ence_of_absence Jerrywayne, that works, but assumes that you know what every last bit of "positive evidence" looks like, so as to conclude there is a complete absence. Since you are dealing with an unknown unstudied critter, it is problematic in practice to arrive at a complete absence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Ok, so if it's rejected accepted, and the reviewers give valid reasons for their rejection acceptance, you'd be ok with that? Absolutely. Appeal to authority fallacy. And not even an appropriate one at that. I hope you see the irony of mentioning appeals to authority when referring to ID. Not having access to the study or the data, it would be premature of me to make any sort of statement about potential reactions to such an occurance. I doubt I'd fully understand the contents of a scientific paper on genetics, which is why I rely on those that do. In this instance, if a respected scientific journal rejects the submission, that likely means it has good reason for doing so, and I would accept the possibility that the submission was faulty in some manner. Given Science's track record on the topic to date, I would not automatically suggest that their rejection was due to a poor paper.Yet another logical fallacy on your part, in this case appeal to acceptance. Nothing to do with fallacies, and everything to do with rejecting the possibility of failure. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I wonder if someone could possibly ask Dr Ketchum that if she were planning to have her report published next week, whether she could possibly delay it for a couple of weeks? I'd be ever so grateful, as I'm going to be in Africa and won't have too much chance to get on the internet. I'm sure she wouldn't mind hanging on for a few more days. Thanks in anticipation. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I really wouldn't worry about that Mike. Have a great trip. We'll leave the light on for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I hope you see the irony of mentioning appeals to authority when referring to ID. Authority? No. Evidence? Absolutely. And there is a lot of good evidence that is ignored by Science (but not by truly honest scientists). Sound familiar? It should. I doubt I'd fully understand the contents of a scientific paper on genetics, which is why I rely on those that do. In this instance, if a respected scientific journal rejects the submission, that likely means it has good reason for doing so, and I would accept the possibility that the submission was faulty in some manner. Then you have to decide who you trust...the scientists who did the work or "reviewers" who are part of an establishment with a proven track record of intellectual dishonesty when it comes to BF. Would I say that in such a case it was impossible for the paper to be wrong? No. But the ball is in the Skeptic court to surmount a very high threshold, given their lack of objectivity to date. I really wouldn't worry about that Mike. Have a great trip. We'll leave the light on for you. I thought this was BFF, not Motel 6...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Ok, so if it's rejected, and the reviewers give valid reasons for their rejection, you'd be ok with that? RayG Rejection wouldn't necessarily equate to inconclusive data. I would have to hear the reasons before being Ok with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 so if lindsay is correct and this dna is out of this world[alien] do you think it will actually get published or accepted? I dont think this paper will prove there existence once and for all..Now if smeja would have kept that body that would be another thing. Does science need a specimen to compare it to anyways before they accept it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Then you have to decide who you trust...the scientists who did the work or "reviewers" who are part of an establishment with a proven track record of intellectual dishonesty when it comes to BF. For heaven's sake Mulder, this little gem from you may be more damning to any visage of your objectivity than anything any of us have ever written about you. It appears to me that your perception is something like this: Scientists who study bigfoot and claim bigfoot is real = brave paradigm-challengers. Scientists who study bigfoot and find the evidence lacking = liars, frauds, victims of the establishment. Scientists who review bigfoot papers and find the evidence lacking = liars, frauds, victims of the establishment. Scientists who don't study bigfoot or review papers about it = the establishment (actively trying to quash any research about bigfoot). Is that about right, or have I committed some error in interpretation of your remarks that you will label in Latin and dismiss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 No, you pretty much nailed it Saskeptic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Now Lindsay's 'leaks' are saying that the BF DNA is alien? Yikes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Tell us more about this. Is this a joke? How do we know what alien DNA is composed of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) For heaven's sake Mulder, this little gem from you may be more damning to any visage of your objectivity than anything any of us have ever written about you. It appears to me that your perception is something like this: Scientists who study bigfoot and claim bigfoot is real = brave paradigm-challengers. Scientists who study bigfoot and find the evidence lacking = liars, frauds, victims of the establishment. Scientists who review bigfoot papers and find the evidence lacking = liars, frauds, victims of the establishment. Scientists who don't study bigfoot or review papers about it = the establishment (actively trying to quash any research about bigfoot). Is that about right, or have I committed some error in interpretation of your remarks that you will label in Latin and dismiss? Like Drew said, you nailed it. Plus I'm not smart enough to translate the Latin and it's a distraction. I get sidetracked and start thinking about all of the fake Latin names for Wile E. Coyote whenever he posts them. Mulder, I also noticed that in your long response where you broke down my post line for line and answered each, you left out the main passage. The passage that it was all building up towards. The same question that Ray also asked. Was this on purpose? I think it's to be able to say you were right no matter what the outcome of the paper. I don't blame you, I'm a fence-sitter too. Edited April 18, 2012 by FuriousGeorge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) By the way, I stopped by Facebook, and again, I think people are getting the right picture. Saskeptic has previously pointed this out. But to review: Here are the questions to ask; all of them can be answered; no media embargo or journal rules will prevent them being answered: 1) is the paper presently in the hands of a journal? yes or no. 2) has the paper been accepted for publication? yes or no. 3) If it has been accepted, what general time frame are we looking at for when it will be published(summer, fall, etc)? I am just struck by the idea that people are actually watching NBC news on Thursday afternoon with the hope that, with no prior notice, the paper is going to appear the next day. p. Edited April 18, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Unfortunately Parnassus, more and more the answer to all three has been " Step right up folks...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Now Lindsay's 'leaks' are saying that the BF DNA is alien? Yikes The guy will grasp at anything and run with it. He's been reading over here again and making some leaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts