yowiie Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 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 :-) Welll there isn't much to talk about in relation to Ketchums finds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Discounting Science is like discounting reality. Science is all around us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) FWIW, I wrote a paper once (well, my PhD) and it took a long time for it to get accepted. It wasn't that it needed a million changes, it was more that: 1) the reviewers were working people with other commitments 2) I was a working person with other commitments Combine the two, and you inevitably have a drawn-out process. Not sayin' this is definitely the case for Ketchum, but it could be a contributing factor. Edited June 29, 2012 by corvus horribilus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Im not one who leans on the conspiracy side, BUT does anyone think the government will just sit back and watch this unfold without having its say or gathering all the data to have it looked at by government officials to see whether or not it is beneficial to the public to be let out? Im sure they are watching the ketchum study very closely and will pounce before anything is let out to the public after all this is no small matter. Not saying they will never let it out but im sure they will want to go over this with a fine comb and this may put its release off for maybe many more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 FWIW, I wrote a paper once (well, my PhD) and it took a long time for it to get accepted. It wasn't that it needed a million changes, it was more that: 1) the reviewers were working people with other commitments 2) I was a working person with other commitments Combine the two, and you inevitably have a drawn-out process. Not sayin' this is definitely the case for Ketchum, but it could be a contributing factor. I struggle with that...because, because...if she had such "amazing" data, I think whatever journal would drop everything and just focus on IT. And, please dearest brainiacs on here, don't lambast me or take "drop everything" literal. Y'all know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JVDBogart Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Yah, me too! I know I am biased and all, but we are talking about an unknown, north american ape, and possibly the closest human relative ever discovered and are you telling me that is not worth missing a few soccer games and birthday parties for?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Discounting Science is like discounting reality. Science is all around us. Agreed, but don't forget science as we know it is only as infallible as the humans conducting it. WHAT??? Dr. Meldrum made a mistake ??!! He must be human, but without proper DNA analysis we can only speculate So, back to the subject matter...exactly how long has it been since Ketchum began her DNA project? And is this really an unrealistic amount of time to wait for a conclusion? If it is taking too long, that what could possibly be the problem?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I have not posted on here in a while, but i've keep up with all the talk and rumors. A few months ago when Ketchum had her public facebook page up, Sally admitted that the lack of information was not the journal rules, but Melba not wanting to release any details until it was published. I'm surprised none of you saw that. Maybe they deleted it not to long after they posted it. I would link to it ( unless they did in fact delete it) but as you know the public page is no longer available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) I suspected as much. Not long ago we had not one but 2 multiple published scientists come in and tell that the way she is doing this is NOT the way the process goes. They BOTH said that they would TRUMPET the fact that they were getting published and talk about it freely with their colleagues and immediately add it to their CV. No matter, others still came out and said she was following the rules and regs of the "journal" she was working with and they forbade her from uttering a single syllable about her "paper." It always amazed me how she and others could tell us about the rules and directives of this "journal" and follow them to the "T," but could not even name what journal it was that she was obeying. Heck there are many instances of scientists that go to conferences and present an outline of what their submitted papers are going to show and contain and they are never sanctioned for it. Yet we're led to believe that she's got the most earth shattering discovery in zoological history and she can't tell a soul about it because of a "journal" that maybe 2,500 people will read dictates it? Same goes for her pictures and video of Sassy and family units that she obtained on HER lease. No need to release that stuff, people will just poke holes in it and not believe it anyway. Thanks for posting that tidbit squating. Nalajr Edited June 30, 2012 by Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Thank BOTH of you for your input, both of these posts made interesting reading....getting a clearer picture now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Squating? That rhymes with waiting. Shouldn't it be squatting? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I believe one of the members who hasn't posted for a while interpreted something Sally said that way but it was never confirmed as the referenced statement could not be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Part of the original set of samples and much of the original funding came from a man who has several million tied up in research and the making of a documentary. The success of his documentary depends on being released along with the scientific anouncement of their DNA findings. It would not be surpising therefore that Adrian Erickson would have made sure that the release of information would not hinder his chances of making a return on his investement. Just some speculation on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I don't know if he'll make the several million back, but I guess it really depends on the success of the DNA that's supposed o be published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Mulder, that is how science works. 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. BTW, we've been over this in this very thread, several times already if I'm not mistaken. I think Mulder's point has always been that the institutional dogma , is a resistance to a paradigm shift. They don't come easily in science from what I understand, though it reasonably should if it simply hinged on the existence of a single new species of hominin. DNA seems well enough understood to prove it this way, but perhaps proving it exists also proves so many people wrong that it becomes an embarrasment to boot. What would be the paradigm shift involved here? Would it simply be that we had to stop ignoring the witnesses and pretending that nothing exists as an extant hominid that we can't call Homo sapiens sapiens? How would you, Saskeptic, recommend dealing with such a thing as a conservationist who would have to consider how to categorize this creature as either an animal with animal rights, or a human with human rights? Would this be a consideration for the institution of science where the truth can be told regardless of it's impact or would this be left to law makers who may not understand the philosophical dilemma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts