On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 09:18:31AM -0800, Mike Euritt quotes: > 1. We never asked anyone to duplicate the study. Which is as far as you need to go. One of the first things that real scientists do is publish their research in peer-reviewed journals so that others can duplicate the work. Most good scientists will actually try to have colleagues in the field replicate their work BEFORE publication, especially if they have reason to be skeptical about their own results. Sometimes this results in confirmation; sometimes this results in the uncovering of experimental errors that lead in turn to reconsideration of the underlying hypothesis that gave rise to the experiment in the first place. It is considered essential to the peer review process that all work be replicable -- and work which can't be, or hasn't been, is rightly viewed with considerable skepticism. So keep firmly in mind that this is a *marketing* company, which was paid to fabricate the results that its client wanted. (And if you take the time to read the rather obviously superior work done by the scientists and given the in URLs I furnished, you'll see that the marketers didn't even do a very good job making things up. One would think that people who are paid to lie professionally would be somewhat better at it.) ---Rsk p.s. Incidentally, I read DailyKos *and* RedState, among many others. But I also evaluate articles in my fields -- science, mathematics, engineering, computing -- independently, which I think I'm qualified to do based on multiple degrees and decades of experience. I care far less about which web site I find material on, and far more about its intrinsic merits or lack thereof. Besides, it's usually not that difficult -- in the case of work published in refereed journals -- to work backwards to the original source material and read *that*, thus bypassing the political/economic/social/etc. filters imposed by commentators. As some useful starting points, let me suggest: http://www.aip.org/ http://arxiv.org/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ http://www.badscience.net/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/ http://www.eurekalert.org/ http://hubblesite.org/ http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/ http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/labnotes/ http://scienceblogs.com/moleculeoftheday/ http://www.nature.com/ http://www.newscientist.com/ http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ http://planetary.org/blog http://www.plos.org/ http://richarddawkins.net/ http://www.sciencemag.org/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/ http://sciencematters.berkeley.edu/index.php http://scienceweek.com/ http://scienceblogs.com/ http://www.sciam.com/ http://www.seedmagazine.com/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/ http://www.technologyreview.com/ http://www.longnow.org/ *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Wed Dec 31 2008 - 11:00:21 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:31:31 PDT