Guest Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Sorry Guys and Gals ..... New forecast for Friday ..... Cloudy and 1250 degrees ... LOL.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Since Dr. Ketchum made her premature defense of the study, responding to unfortunate leaks, an army of armchair critics have already dismissed the results without waiting to see the actual data. That’s not the way science is supposed to work, but it is exactly how modern science operates. It’s as much a religion as Catholicism or Mormonism, and anything that falls outside the accepted scriptures must be ridiculed. I just don't get all the meanness this story has engendered. As far as I've been able to tell, a key concept of "critical thinking" as espoused by many self identified skeptics is to belittle, denigrate, and destroy the character of somebody that might be able to deliver information counter to their argument. For example, the JREF forum talks much about "critical thinking", but after reading through page after page of their discussions I've rarely come across discussion of facts or issues. The main course seems to be who can come up with the cleverest pejorative. As ScienceCritic has noted and as I've also noted many a time, nobody has yet read the work or reviewed the data from Dr. Ketchum and discussed it in this forum or any other forum. The closest that anyone has come to seeing the report and data and reporting about it is George Knapp, and he seems to be rather enthusiastic about it. Those that are most vociferous in their animosity toward Dr. Ketchum seem to be the most distant from actual knowledge of the research, data, or the report. Below linked a very relevant article to digest in prep for the inevitable backlash. Published in The Guardian a very well respected broadsheet newspapr in the UK. Strap line is: Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed http://m.guardian.co...-review-science "Publish or perish" is a well known phenomenon in the world of academics, but has little impact outside academia. POP means that in order to be considered for tenure as a professor you need to publish research in recognized journals or your tenure will be denied. Dr. Ketchum isn't a professor and does not have this challenge, although we don't yet know what other authors will sign on to the report so POP pressure may apply to them. Edited December 18, 2012 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Strefert said it is a joke in comments at the bottom of the page under the countdown clocks and other images. Steven Streufert said... I'm just kidding about them making "scientific announcements" on Facebook, of all places. December 17, 2012 3:52 PM Sorry Guys and Gals ..... New forecast for Friday ..... Cloudy and 1250 degrees ... LOL.... I believe the winds are expected out of what was North on Thursday but will be southwest on Friday at mach 1.2 or 880 m.p.h. or so with higher gusts near the heavy magma activiy areas of the crustal displacement, excluding localized variable winds in the super hurricane wind fields. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 As far as I've been able to tell, a key concept of "critical thinking" as espoused by many self identified skeptics is to belittle, denigrate, and destroy the character of somebody that might be able to deliver information counter to their argument. For example, the JREF forum talks much about "critical thinking", but after reading through page after page of their discussions I've rarely come across discussion of facts or issues. The main course seems to be who can come up with the cleverest pejorative. Along with goal post moving, double standards (applying "critical thinking" to proponents but NOT Skeptics), etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Let's all quit worrying about the direction goal posts are going, and start worrying about finding, you know, some actual proof of this animal. Sound good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 ^How about your side stop playing games and demonstrate some intellectual integrity when it comes to examining the evidence on proffer...sound good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Anyone else think a DNA study published in a jounal such as Nature would be way better than an actual body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 ^Personally, no. A body wouldn't need interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I don't know about it being a record, but I got banned on the first post because I told him he didn't know what the hell he was talking about. I got banned first post because I asked him if he was the guy that played Napoleon Dynamite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted December 18, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted December 18, 2012 New Interview ? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e9n0LfOcfqE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Last week BobbyO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Anyone else think a DNA study published in a jounal such as Nature would be way better than an actual body? I think it would be better, because it is far more ethical if they are human. The first thing scientists would do is to take DNA samples and begin to determine it's origin. It would become unethical as soon as they determined what the DNA says, if human. All human samples studied by science have to be willingly offered, collected at a crime scene,or taken under court order in felony cases. Finding samples deposited in the wilds gets around this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) There's an article labeled "Genetics" with no keywords set to come out of embargo Thursday afternoon. This post is provided for entertainment purposes only. For further entertainment also this Science paper releasing Thursday is tagged..... Evolution and Darwin , Fighting, Fists, Male-Male Competition, Dexterity, Sexual Selection, Apes, Humans, Combat , Manual Dexterity Edited December 18, 2012 by GEARMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted December 18, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted December 18, 2012 Last week BobbyO. I was close.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Here's an interesting article on Ketchum http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/texas-dna-specialist-writes-that-sasquatch-is-a-modern-human-being/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts