Posted on 02/28/2006 7:05:48 PM PST by PatrickHenry
It was the process of peer review that eventually exposed the fraud.
The stem-cell research that has since been debunked directly gained its prominence from Science Magazine, which was peer reviewed.
Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is a step in peer review. It is not the end of peer review. It is an ongoing process. Cutting-edge theories and research (like stem-cell work) are more susceptible to actual doubt and controversy. Evolution, on the other hand, has been slowly established over more than 100 years of careful research. It is not a cutting-edge theory (though cutting-edge data continues to support it and elucidate it in greater detail); it is one with well-established evidence along many lines of inquiry. Surely you aren't suggesting that all the evidence supporting evolution is fraudulent? This would literally require a worldwide conspiracy lasting over a century between thousands if not hundreds of thousands of researchers.
Maybe all the teachers in Nevada ought to say is "Science has a long history of overcoming its own errors, hopefully to our ultimate advantage." "Scientists are human beings, and profoundly fallible like all human beings." "Science Magazine's Peer Review System is Unreliable."
All these but the last statement are accurate (though the first two are virtues of peer review, not faults). Science has generally been a very reliable journal; it just isn't perfect. When mistakes are found (as in any human endeavor), they are retracted and/or corrected in errata. Deliberate frauds that make it to this level are very rare, but can be difficult to expose; that is why the penalty for falsifying data in the science community is severe. The scientists involved will probably never be allowed to publish again. Their careers and credibility are (rightfully) ruined.
However, stating that this "doubt" lends equal credence to evolution and creation in a science classroom is equivalent to introducing two concepts, one which is 99+% accurate, the other 0% accurate, and saying they are both just as valid because neither is 100% accurate.
I won't post the whole analysis again but I hate the silly shell-game that results when that objection is pursued.
If you read the list of definitions, right at the top it states:
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread)My initial list was modified by suggestions made by many posters on that thread. You can still go to that thread and make suggestions for how you think the definitions should read.
Hmmmm. That implies that life on earth will end in the instant that you die. But 1973 is only 33 years ago, so you're still young.
Since I'm 64, I'll be gone before you are, but just in case:
Take your vitamins! Eat your vegetables! Fasten your seat belt! Watch your blood pressure! Don't smoke! Don't snack between meals! Get a good night's sleep! Eat breakfast! Drink little or no alcohol! Shun loose women (or men, depending on your preference)!
And try to have fun...
Nope. He was snitched out by underlings, and his competitors through an anonymous internet mechanism. He was not caught out by official peer review until the peers could no longer avoid acknowledging their malpractice.
Interestingly, Korea is the best-wired country in the world, and is now suffering some pathologies from that which we might do well on Fr to pay attn to. In Korea, you use an official ID # (similar to our SS) for many commercial transactions. Chinese hackers recently got ahold of a quarter million of these #'s and joined online games in order to "farm" virtual merchandise (virtual swords and sorceries to be sold on places like ebay.) Big lawsuit time, for SK is highly litigious.
There was an article recently in the SK press about the interrelatedness of the two scandals.
And exactly how is this determined?
If we can use "probability" to determine the "possibility" of abiogenesis occurring, despite our lack of knowledge on so many factors affecting abiogenesis, how about we calculate the 'possibility' that a God exists, or that some group of alien beings not only came into existence without abiogenesis but were able to 'seed' Earth and stay completely hidden while poking away at many of Earth's organism's genomes.
Interesting. Definitely a major scandal. I hope those involved get what's coming to them. In any case, science does eventually work, it sometimes takes a while, though, unfortunately. (Someone definitely would smell a rat if the results couldn't eventually be duplicated, though not until millions of dollars were wasted.)
One can post a list as many times as one can peck a keyboard, but important terms in a discussion should be decided (negotiated) between participants, not handed down by a dictator. These terms are abstractions, full of meaning. I'm encouraging those reading to not sign on your dotted line before they have a chance to think about it.
That would be about 3 years after time itself began, which was at midnight on january 1st 1970
LOL! Do they bear any resemblence to Those Who Must Not Be Spoken To? They'd sure like to think so.
If you are seeking discussion, you can try to set the terms. But the success of that may depend on how wary your victims are.
For the sake of argument, say we were to accept the commonly used definition of 'theory', namely: "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
Then we would need to come up with a new word to describe evolution, such as: widelyacceptedthoroughlytestedfalsifiablesetofexplanations
As in, "we are debating whether or not the widelyacceptedthoroughlytestedfalsifiablesetofexplanations
of evolution should be taught in biology class."
It doesn't quite roll off the tongue as nicely.
---"I am now thoroughly convinced that life on earth began in 1973, on the exact day I was born.
That would be about 3 years after time itself began, which was at midnight on january 1st 1970"---
Man, Bob, between your observation and mine, this Evolution/Creation thing happened MUCH faster than anyone realized!
;-) LOL
I'm disputing your right to set them without negotiation.
re: The terms are already well defined within the field of science.)))
Passive voice--usually indicates that the writer expects the hearer to sign on to an unnegotiated assumption.
re: I do not see any attempt at victimization.)))
Good.
You're going to have to sell your definitions every time you use them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.