The Ketchum Report

[indiefoot]

The term "accepted for publication" seems to have a special meaning to you, bigfootnis. I assume it is when the publication is announced, as the whole thing could be called off until that time. That being the case then you are correct, they have not announced the publication of Dr.Ketchum and associates paper.

[Guest]

Ketchum herself can't be blamed for the hype. Leaks occurred, yes, but all the hype can be blamed on threads like this. WE are the ones doing the hyping, not her.

Well, I certainly hope Dr. K has the goods in her study but neither she or Sally have done the project any favors by continually promising *soon* on their FB page.

I view those as self-imposed and as yet unsubstantiated hyping.

At some point it begins to look like *The Boy Who Cried Wolf* to most.

Not saying that is the case with *The Ketchum Report* as I've heard some really positive things regarding her study privately.

But dang, the PR on this has been severely mishandled IMHO.

I don't think that can be blamed on *threads like this*.

[AaronD]

HRPuffnstuff, I'm just gonna call it "anticlimatic" anymore. You know the feeling after a week or two of putting your tooth under your pillow and your parents--err the toothfairy--just ain't takin it, ya just throw the daggoned thing in the garbage and say "you want it, go get it" and you just let the whole thing go LOL that's kinda where I'm at with the Ketchum report....when/if it comes out I'll catch it....."yawn"

[Guest]

I hear ya' brother. So the analogy to the *tooth-fairy* is especially funny as I watched an episode of America's Funniest Home Videos the other day that depicted a child trying to *fool* the tooth-fairy by placing a fake tooth under her pillow.

The crux of the video was that *mom* knew what she was up to and the kid did not get any money under her pillow for the fake tooth. All she got was a note from the *tooth-fairy* stating that he/she was aware of the scam and not falling for it.

While I do not think Dr. K or any of the others involved would risk their reputations by perpetrating a scam, I do think that the PR over this event has been severely mishandled by the constant FB promises of *soon*.

Dunno, I know some of the folks involved in this and trust them as they are proven people of character.

But dang, it is hard to imagine any poorer handling of it from a PR perspective at the present time.

That could certainly change if something of substantative value were posted *soon*.

[Guest]

Particle Noun, in answer to your question above about revisions and would it get this far and still be rejected .. probably not . Usually the reviewers request revisions, rewrites , further expts etc. You are usually given some period of time in which to complete these. Once that is done , the paper goes back to the reviewers and they will either recommend publication , or request further changes ... which in most cases are minor compared to the initial requested changes . As long as the requests from the reviewers are considered and addressed in some manner , the paper will usually be published. If however, the authors do not agree or refuse to do what they request , then it may not be published. However that type of situation would usually occur far earlier in the process .

[Guest]

But wouldn't the content of the paper be the same regardless of publication venue, so that after an initial period of dismissal based on a non-traditional means of promulgation, wouldn't scientists worldwide be able to vet the study and find it either valid or invalid? Wouldn't the credentials of the individual researchers who executed and authored the study remain as impressive even if the results were published "off grid"? And wouldn't this vetting process serve as an analogue to the peer review process used by any given journal? Granted, it would be a baggier, much less efficient process, but wouldn't the cream still eventaully rise to the surface, if the results do turn out to be cream?

You have to understand a basic fact: Science as an institution has talked its way into being perceived as the ultimate arbiter of fact and truth. It determines both based not on facts and information, but on "consensus". You can have the world's most perfect paper, and if the "mainstream" rejects it, it is considered less than nothing.

Who sets the standards for acceptance?

Science.

Who decides what evidence and reasoning is permitted to support the claim?

Science.

Who is "prosecutor, judge, and jury" when it comes to a claim?

Science.

Things would be a lot more interesting in multiple fields (life sciences and history in particular) if the institution lived by its own credo. But it doesn't.

But everyone would also know that the "something wrong" might well be a timidity or over-conservatism on the

part of the journal and its chosen referees.

Absolutely, but because Science has been allowed to frame the terms of the debate, they get to operate from a postion of presumed correctness, despite the fact that they have been wrong again and again and again and again and again.

I understand that peer reviewed publishing in an academic journal does indeed place credence on the subject being discussed.

But if a journal simply chooses not to publish a paper, how does that TRULY change the facts of the study?

By that notion, only a handful of journals would control all that is 'true' in the realm of science, right? If there are personal agendas by the publishers of the journal, there are TONS of things that these journals could surpress for a variety of reasons.

I think if the work is sound, it will indeed stand on its own, even if it's written on an etch a sketch.

:-)

It should, but it won't, thanks to the way we have allowed the Scientific institution to frame the discussion.

Well put, Cotter. Perhaps a parallel can be found in the publishing world at large. Ten years ago, we all dismissed bloggers as falling hopelessly outside of legitimate journalism because they were self-publishing their work instead of being "good enough" to pass muster with newspapers or magazines; now, they wield great influence, because their content is judged on its own merits. Likewise, in terms of books, authors who did not find approval by the gate-keepers of traditional publishing houses were long conisidered inferior. Increasingly, though, writers have learned that they can connect directly with readers, and that the quality of their work can be judged on its own merits rather than by systemically appointed judges. I'm sure that science lags behind this forward movement, but in the digital/internet age, even this realm is sure to come along, so that the limited fiefdoms of journals and pannels cannot continue to exercise disproportionate leverage.

Even now, "bloggers" are routinely derided as not being reliable sources of accurate information. I've lost count of how many times I've had someone try to rebut something I cited by saying "your source is just some 'blogger'".

Argument from established authority is alive and well in the early 21st century.

[Guest MikeG]

If you don't want science to be the arbiter of what is scientific fact or not, Mulder, who exactly do you think should do that job?

Mike

[Guest]

I would be far more sanguine about accepting the judgement of the Scientific institution if I were not aware of just how much orthodoxy and the defense of same have control of that instituion. Not just on BF, but on a whole raft of issues.

I think that under the best of circumstances, the only thing Science has any legitimate right to say is "This is our data, and our best analysis of it suggests [x]." In the end, each individual must make up his or her own mind as to what is true and what is not. Positions that have strong legitimacy can and will persuade people based on that legitimacy, not on the basis that "Science has spoken".

Sorry this is short, but I have to be out the door in about 5 minutes.

[Guest MikeG]

"Short" often gets the point across better, Mulder!

The thing is, science says "this is the data, and here are our conclusions from that data"......and everyone says yeah, yeah, I don't believe you, what do you know, it's like this, innit? Obvious..... So, they (the scientists) talk to themselves, know what is what, and hope that eventually the general public will eventually catch up to where they were 20 or 30 years ago.

We must be careful not to divert too far from the topic, though...

Mike

[Guest]

Mulder, that is how science works.

Then, after multiple studies suggest the same [x] is happening, you can unify those studies into a theory. If new data or analyses come along to force a revision to a theory - or topple it altogether in a leap forward in our understanding - then great! That's what every scientist wants to do: shift a paradigm. This whole institutional dogma tripe you are so fond of sharing is the King Kong of straw men.

RE publishing - Journals are highly selective of what they publish and rightly so. But their bread and butter is similar to that of any ambitious scientist: they want to publish groundbreaking work. If Ketchum can really prove that there's a population of undiscovered bigfoots out there - heck if she can just prove that there's an undescribed mammal over 50 kg in North America right now - the major journals would be bending over backwards to carry that story. But if they publish it and the work was flawed and erroneous (or worse, fraudulent), then the journal becomes a laughing stock, kind of like CNN with their premature announcement yesterday. So groundbreaking work will be thoroughly vetted, but if it is up to snuff of course it will be published.

BTW, we've been over this in this very thread, several times already if I'm not mistaken.

[Guest]

Last bit on this OT:

The thing is, science says "this is the data, and here are our conclusions from that data"......and everyone says yeah, yeah, I don't believe you, what do you know, it's like this, innit? Obvious..... So, they (the scientists) talk to themselves, know what is what,

Do they? Science has been wrong again and again and again and again. What you just said is the intellectual basis for argument from authority, to wit: they're "scientists" so they know.

History does not bear that out as a universal case.

and hope that eventually the general public will eventually catch up to where they were 20 or 30 years ago.

Usually it's Science that is catching up to where the general public was sometimes centuries ago. On issue after issue after issue, including medicine, various discoveries of plants and animals, physical phenominon such as meteorites, and the list goes on.

[Guest]

WHAT ???

I haven't seen the general public making any huge scientific breakthough's lately. Care to name any ?

[Guest BFSleuth]

Science has been wrong again and again and again and again. What you just said is the intellectual basis for argument from authority, to wit: they're "scientists" so they know.

Mulder, I certainly enjoy reading your positions on the issues. However, this particular argument to discount Science (with the capital "S") is the argument you discourage when considering the qualifications of Dr. Meldrum - ie. because Dr. Meldrum has been wrong at least once then all of his findings should be discounted or suspect.

While it is certainly true that Science has been wrong on many occasions, it does not follow that Science is therefore completely wrong or should be absolutely discounted. The current process of science is to make a hypothesis, then test the hypothesis with experiments, publish a peer reviewed paper, then have the rest of the scientific community try to replicate the experiment or do new experiments to amplify or extend the findings. If an experiment can't be reliably replicated, then the finding itself is called into question. Science has various organizations and bodies which are arbiters of current understandings in various fields. They are populated by humans and it follows that there are debates and political push for competing points of view. This is how it works. It does not follow that therefore because there are competing view or that the body of Science has been found to be wrong at times, that we should throw out all of Science.

I'm quite comfortable with the process of peer review and I think that it represents a very robust and proper way to vet the work of scientists. Does it make it difficult for new ideas or findings to be heard? Absolutely. However, I wouldn't want it any other way. The extreme alternative would be for Science to be built on a cacophony of fringe theories and free for all "logic". I vote for the more considered approach of consensus building within a scientific community.

[Guest Shaun]

I think we should rename this thread to 'Random Discusssion', as it's very hard to stay on topic until (if) the report comes out :-)

[Guest MikeG]

.............which is why moderators have to keep posting "advisories" to drag things back to somewhere near the topic.

If and when the paper eventually publishes, I don't imagine we'll have much trouble stickling to the subject.

Mike