Guest slimwitless Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 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. Why don't you post those three questions on her Facebook page? Here are a few quotes from that page: I will post it here immediately as soon as the embargo lifts. You will know before the world has time to react. Sally here - The journal does not permit announcing when embargos are lifted - that eliminates the usefulness of the embargo. References to "the embargo" and "the journal" don't exactly sound like abstract notions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Will those who seem certain, or at least have expressed serious doubt that the paper is with a journal at all go on the record to say that they believe Dr. Ketchum and Sally Ramey are lying to us? That is the clear inference, but I think it would be best to state it plainly. There have been clear statements like the above posted by Slim where they clearly indicate the paper is with a journal, therefore those who express significant doubt that this is the case must think they are lying, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Am I the only one who doesn't believe Ketchum's paper (if it does in fact even exist) matters? I just get the sense that if it was conclusive in any way, it'd already be common knowledge. I refuse to pin any of my BF hopes and dreams on the works of Ketchum folks. Sorry. It sure would be fun if she did wind up demonstrating the existence of BF but with all the bs that's churning over her paper, I'm eerily reminded of how often hype of this level leads to nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Will those who seem certain, or at least have expressed serious doubt that the paper is with a journal at all go on the record to say that they believe Dr. Ketchum and Sally Ramey are lying to us? That is the clear inference, but I think it would be best to state it plainly. There have been clear statements like the above posted by Slim where they clearly indicate the paper is with a journal, therefore those who express significant doubt that this is the case must think they are lying, no? Please don't do this! Dr Ketchum is a member here, and we don't tolerate any member being called a liar. Thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Particle Noun, Since I've joined this forum, I've familiarized myself with the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 18,372 times, shame on me". Does that answer you question without me calling anyone a liar?.... Which is never a nice thing to do btw. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Sorry Mike, I rescind that question entirely. I suppose I'm frustrated by some tip toeing around the issue, and not being willing to say what they think about that. It seems clear to me (and I think many others) that Dr. Ketchum has indicated, as has Sally, that the paper is with a journal. I think it's fair game to question whether the paper will be legit, will be accepted, or will be as dramatic as they say, but to question whether it is even at a journal (and several here have explicitly stated they think it is clear it is NOT at a journal) seems to me to be calling her exactly that. I do apologize. I'm still a newbie and am learning where the lines in the sand are! Thanks for you patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Dr Ketchum is a member here As is Sally Ramey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Both of whom I have a lot of respect for, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 ^And that's great. One of the themes I've tried to address over the years is that people we admire and respect, people who are world renowned experts in their fields, can be wrong. They can be wrong and not know it, or they can be wrong and know it. You're right that we tiptoe around the "liar" moniker every day here. While I understand that it's disrespectful to call people liars and we cannot allow that and maintain any semblance of civility in our discussions here, it's also important for folks to realize that it remains an option on the table until proven otherwise. Dr. Ketchum and Ms. Ramey could be lying about the paper; although I suspect they are writing truthfully when they indicate that there is a paper, I won't know for sure until I see it. So rather than call people liars, the idea I'm trying to demonstrate is that lying is one of several possible explanations for ANY anecdotal account. As of right now, Ketchum's paper is anecdotal to me: I've read things people have written about it, but I have not seen anything yet to confirm that it exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) Why don't you post those three questions on her Facebook page? Why don't you? I am not one of the people who watch NBC news on Thursday afternoon to try to find out if the paper is coming out on Friday. And, frankly, Slim, if those people who are doing so, don't have enough self-respect to ask these questions themselves, I'm not going out of my way to ask FOR them. Particle Noun:LOL, I will give you my stock answer: I am saying what I said, not what you said. ....we call what you did the "straw man" deal, and it is something we are pretty used to... it's sort of a joke around here.... The "are you calling me/somebody a something-or-other?" stuff is just lame. Not saying you did it intentionally, but it's usually a derail attempt, or an attempt to smear, or incite the crowd. I didn't sleep though my composition classes; If I wanted to express what you said, I think I am perfectly capable of doing so, but the fact is, I didn't want to express that, so I didn't. ETA re Saskeptics post: if your physics instructor put a red check mark on one of your quiz answers, would you stand up in class and ask him if he were accusing you of lying? p. Edited April 18, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) I dont think she has ever stated at what stage that paper is in . She has hinted at it being in review, but as of late has not come out and said that implicitly. I agree that Saskeptics questions are spot on and should be able to be answered . I too spent a lot of years in research and although journals have rules which may differ a bit here and there, I have never heard a problem with presenting your work at a conference prior to publication , or stating at which point in the process your paper is . I am sure that many will chime in to disagree or state this is different . Although it is different in many ways , she still has to do science the same way the rest of us do , including following the same rules we are all bound by, which should not include new rules that those of us in science have never been bound by Edited April 18, 2012 by MikeG Personal comment removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Not calling people liars doesn't mean we can't challenge them, of course. You could ask for evidence to back up an assertion they've made, that sort of thing. But hey, if you guys were ever to think it was easy trying to work out when and where that line is between acceptable and unacceptable challenging, just try being a moderator for a day! Sorry Slim, yes I should have mentioned Sally, who is also protected by our rules. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 LOL Parn, I don't believe I name checked you at all, did I? I think my poorly worded question was meant to try and clarify for myself if people who were seriously questioning the assertion that the paper was even at a journal thought that Dr. Ketchum and Ms. Ramey were lying. However, clearly that is entrapment, as calling a member a liar is verboten (and rightly so, I'll add). I'll say I certainly have an interesting time observing myself in these debates. The automatic reactions and associations that come up are fascinating. I can step to the side and say "Why are you even stepping in to defend people whom you don't know, and for whom you in fact DON'T have solid evidence of their claims yet." There is a certain 'internet forum' psychology at work here. There is also a great deal of wishful thinking, in wanting it to be true. Clearly I've picked a team, but I enjoy the debate, and am able to step back, out of my team, to appreciate the other side. Sas, I especially enjoy your posts (+1 up there), as they are doggedly reasonable. If, as I suspect, the paper does come out, I am really looking forward to the future of this conversation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Well said, PN.....and a + from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Why don't you? Because I don't have an anonymous Facebook account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts