Guest Thepattywagon Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 He gets mine for the day as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 MikeG: I have great faith in science too, but only provided money, tribal dignity, or belief systems are not impacted by the subject matter. Then, all objectivity goes out the window. The editors can and will find any irrelevant excuse to avoid publishing a paper. Don't even ask me what those more specific subjects might be except to say that the Sasquatch is among them. Here is an easily understood monetary issue that can be talked about in the present day: The tobacco hazard research of yesteryear. Do you really think that was objective ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Good one. And the environmental hazards of many chemical agents developed in the 1960's. If it wasn't for the grass roots movement begun by a lowly female teacher/writer, not a scientist, we might still be going by what those scientists said about the safety of them. Science tends to have a bias, unfortunately that bias is based on funding. I'm not talking about the private scientist working on something in his garage here, I'm talking about the pharma industry, the petrochem/fertilizer/pesticide industries etc. They are big employers and sponsors of scientific research these days, but don't imagine they use that money in an unbiased manner. Edited April 20, 2012 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Are you guys setting up a logging industry or some other big business stifling the results of this paper scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Hey, I have try out the skoftic side of things sometimes, just to walk a sandbar in their shoes.... Be careful doing that, the prints you leave will be considered inconclusive..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 NFL - I'm a little confused as to why it's such a big deal to check the NBC website? I'm just surprised anyone still WATCHES NBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I have to work on my post count to be eligible to read BFF1.0, so will be asking a lot of dumb questions. My question is this, "Wasn't this thread originally about a report that may or may not be published by a certain Dr Melba Ketchum?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Isn't that the truth GII. How many times have they stuck their necks out and only had them chopped off now? I gave up on NBC and a couple of other news organizations long ago and no longer view them as credible. really if there are any of you that are watching nbc to see if this is coming out you need a new hobby. Or at least get out there and find it yourself. This paper has been "about to come out" for about two years too long. If they had something it would have been out by now. I don't know buddy, but I guess our timeframes/expectations for The Ketchum Report being released are a tad different. With numerous parties involved, NDA concerns/agreements, as well as lawyers representing the various parties, and DNA analysis/peer review efforts, it is no wonder to me that it has taken some time for this to all come together. I think some errors in the dissemination of their findings released via FB announcements have been detrimental. Constant and repeated promises of *soon* on FB for some time now, have in my mind, really raised the expectations and it might have done so to a point in which they can't be achieved. I don't know, I reckon we'll see rather *soon* now and be more able to discern what if any ramifications those will play. Part of me says they should have been smarter and handled things differently and not continually promised *soon* as that is ambiguous and subject to differing interpretations. The other part of me realizes that there was an awful lot involved in putting this together, and I'm willing to cede any timing concerns in lieu of the noted obstacles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 20, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 20, 2012 I have to work on my post count to be eligible to read BFF1.0, so will be asking a lot of dumb questions. My question is this, "Wasn't this thread originally about a report that may or may not be published by a certain Dr Melba Ketchum?" Right, brilliant observation, post on........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Are you guys setting up a logging industry or some other big business stifling the results of this paper scenario? Have you ever worn a long sleeve plaid shirt with a hard hat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) a recent facebook statement: Q: do you know when the embargo will be lifted? Dr. Melba Ketchum Sally here - The journal does not permit announcing when embargos are lifted - that eliminates the usefulness of the embargo. See, it is statements like this that make some of us wonder if there really is a paper. It's a simple question and it has a simple answer. Yes or no. The simple answer wasn't given, and, in fact, the question isn't answered. Instead, a statement is made that is ambiguous at best, certainly seems evasive, and by some interpretations, plainly wrong. This sort of stuff has been going on right along. My eyeballs get tired from rolling.... p. Edited April 20, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Have you ever worn a long sleeve plaid shirt with a hard hat? Yes I just woke up, so you might have to help me with this one, SY. What do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 How wha wa wha wait.... "No testable hypothesis" is okay? Do you mean, take their word for it? Only if somebody yells out "Opposite Day" right as the results come out. In a DNA study, there is no "hypothesis" to test. There are DNA samples. They are tested. The results are reported. No "hypothesis" needed, required, or involved. The DNA results are what they are and are absolute fact. Psst . . . Mulder: There's nothing to "refute." If Ketchum publishes a paper claiming DNA from a bigfoot, then there will be something to refute. 'Til then, not so much. Feel free to show me the scientific, peer-reviewed papers that show Fahrenbach is wrong with his analyses, or Meldrum is wrong about the biometrics of the cast tracks, "butt cast", Skookum impression, et al. All of which have been either ignored or dismissed by Skeptics. Entirely without evidence or science to back that dismissal up. No, I fundamentally and utterly disagree with this. Belief is defined by lack of evidence. Science works on evidence. If you accept something to be the position and you have no evidence, then that is belief. If you have good repeatable evidence, or make testable predictions, then that isn't belief, it is science. Take your particle accelerator example. We have big particle accelerators now because we got to the limits of what small ones could show us, and we were still finding stuff at the edge of their range. The maths to work out that there was something to find outside of the range of the small ones would have taken about 30 seconds. No science springs out of nowhere these days. That happened back in the times of the Greeks and the Romans, to an extent, and then during the Enlightenment, but nowadays no science or scientist exists in a vacuum, no particle accelerators are built on a hunch, and nothing about science.........proper science.......runs on belief. It is one of the greatest disappointments of my life that science has produced so much in the last 300 years and 30 years, and yet seems to be held in more contempt now than ever it was in the Dark Ages. It is truly extraordinary to me that science suffers so much distrust and indeed malevolence, in some quarters, when we are in the midst of a golden age, with so much being achieved that was only ever dreamt about by our parents' generation. Mike Gee Mike, it's not like Science hasn't given us good reason to hold it in contempt...more and more examples of scientific fraud added to the rolls every day (Korean cloning, CRU, et al). Science allowing itself to be used as a tool to destroy human society and against the greater public good (GMO foodstuffs, et al). Science arrogantly proclaiming "truth" on matters despite evidence that it is wrong (RCE vs ID). And then there's the attitude it projects: Sneering, dismissive, contemptuous towards the lay person. And you wonder why people don't hold Science/scientists in high regard? :confused: If you are saying that what is accepted in science changes with new evidence, I follow that. What is accepted in science MAY change with new evidence, after much sturm und drang, name calling, denialsim, and endless attempts by the supporters of the then-currently prevailing view to shut out/drown out/ignore the new evidence. Even after all that, there is no guarantee it wll. Are you guys setting up a logging industry or some other big business stifling the results of this paper scenario? Not needed. Plenty of pressure from their "peers" who control funding for research, and who have to "review" papers to not rock the intellectual boat. a recent facebook statement: See, it is statements like this that make some of us wonder if there really is a paper. It's a simple question and it has a simple answer. Yes or no. The simple answer wasn't given, and, in fact, the question isn't answered. Instead, a statement is made that is ambiguous at best, certainly seems evasive, and by some interpretations, plainly wrong. This sort of stuff has been going on right along. My eyeballs get tired from rolling.... p. You could stop rolling them then. It's real simple: they cannot talk about when the embargo might be lifted. What part of that is so hard for you to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Yes I just woke up, so you might have to help me with this one, SY. What do you mean? I was jokingly implying you were a lumber industry worker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Lol SY, I got it after I had my coffee. My one brain cell was blinking on and off. In a DNA study, there is no "hypothesis" to test. There are DNA samples. They are tested. The results are reported. No "hypothesis" needed, required, or involved. The DNA results are what they are and are absolute fact. Well then that explains the hold up. She would need a hypothesis in the introduction, along with predicted results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts