Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stemming the Tide - Letís pay science and math teachers more.
City Journal ^ | 16 January 2009 | Marcus A. Winters

Posted on 01/20/2009 7:55:40 PM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-156 last
To: metmom
By your own definitions, the best scientists can do is say that the evidence supports their theory. That's not good enough. That's not a better reason to accept the ToE rather than to accept Scripture. On the contrary, believing the God who doesn't lie makes much more sense than believing the uncertain, indeterminate conclusions of men.

Calling me anti-science is a lie, plain and simple. It is not true and will never be no matter how often you repeat it and how much you wish it were so.

Your first paragraph belies your second. You make my case for me.

141 posted on 01/22/2009 9:48:47 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
A text book? Sure, that's easy

I’m not going to advert to one of your favorite putdowns and suggest that you need to read for comprehension. Instead, I’ll simply observe that my question went to a great deal more substance than simply the name of a textbook. Your answer responds to none of the specs detailed in my query and ducks the issue entirely. The answer was unpalatable, so in the typical fashion of politics you rattled the keys on your board, but produced only noise. You and Senator Schumer could change places without a noticeable drop off in the quantity of bovine excrement on either side.

that peer review process creationists hate so much . . .

Who is it that objects to ‘peer review’? I’ve read objections to the abusive uses that ‘peer review’ has been put to, those abuses perhaps being rightly understood or wrongly understood (surely there are examples of both), but that’s another issue. And oh, how you do love to scramble your issues, thereby, we observe, utilizing another common political tactic.

Everyone in this forum recognizes the value of the peer review process. Everyone also understands that Liberals will abuse any process, subverting it to their own purposes (all the while blaming everything on their intended victims). They often claim as their motive that they are “doing it for the children.” In the same fashion, you claim that you are “doing it for science.” Do you not understand that no one is fooled by your ‘St. Joan at the stake’ schtick? We all recognize the Liberal bada-bing you practice. We see it every day, in a hundred ways. We all know who it is that has a strangle hold on academia and, growingly, on every aspect of our lives. It is not Christians and it is not Conservatives.

When you report to your masters, what is it you hope to get from them? A share in the power, or merely to be left alone to do your work? You had better hope it is the former, because the latter will never happen. It turns out to be the case, indeed, that Ayn Rand accurately prophesized the ultimate plight of America’s science community in her philosophical work Atlas Shrugged. So tell us, Dr. Stadler, how does it feel to be the lackey of Marxist/Socialist zealots?

142 posted on 01/23/2009 1:37:16 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

That’s not a bad idea:
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/15/opinion/oe-feldmann15


143 posted on 01/23/2009 1:42:29 PM PST by drew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"I'd still like to know why"

Purely a rhetorical question, mom. Yes? I won't insult you by acting as though you don't know the answers to your question. Sadly, the very ones who most desperately need to ask themselves the questions and to seek the answers are too bedazzled to think at all.

144 posted on 01/23/2009 3:01:28 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It has nothing to do with pay. It has everything to do with the curriculum pushed down from state bureaucrats, and local teachers unions on schools.


145 posted on 01/23/2009 3:04:27 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; metmom

Everyone in this forum recognizes the value of the peer review process. Everyone also understands that Liberals will abuse any process, subverting it to their own purposes (all the while blaming everything on their intended victims). They often claim as their motive that they are “doing it for the children.” In the same fashion, you claim that you are “doing it for science.” Do you not understand that no one is fooled by your ‘St. Joan at the stake’ schtick? We all recognize the Liberal bada-bing you practice. We see it every day, in a hundred ways. We all know who it is that has a strangle hold on academia and, growingly, on every aspect of our lives. It is not Christians and it is not Conservatives.

When you report to your masters, what is it you hope to get from them? A share in the power, or merely to be left alone to do your work? You had better hope it is the former, because the latter will never happen. It turns out to be the case, indeed, that Ayn Rand accurately prophesized the ultimate plight of America’s science community in her philosophical work Atlas Shrugged. So tell us, Dr. Stadler, how does it feel to be the lackey of Marxist/Socialist zealots?


MOST EXCELLENT observations of the empirical evidence!


146 posted on 01/23/2009 3:16:47 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Everyone in this forum recognizes the value of the peer review process.

The peer review process is relatively new in the field of science. More often than is good for the pursuit of truth, it functions as a means by which orthodoxy in a field is imposed and maintained and as an appeal to authority used by those desirous of maintaining current dogma to say "Hey, if it didn't pass our peer review, it really can't be anything of substance".
147 posted on 01/23/2009 3:39:22 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Yes, rhetorical. But I think the questions need to be given some consideration so that the agenda of those who would ban instead of co-operate can be exposed.


148 posted on 01/23/2009 5:03:47 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; tpanther; YHAOS
More often than is good for the pursuit of truth, it functions as a means by which orthodoxy in a field is imposed and maintained and as an appeal to authority used by those desirous of maintaining current dogma to say "Hey, if it didn't pass our peer review, it really can't be anything of substance".

Or more realistically, if it doesn't pass peer review, it isn't science.

149 posted on 01/23/2009 5:08:13 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

Purveyors of Unknowledge
150 posted on 01/23/2009 5:13:08 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Or more realistically, if it doesn't pass peer review, it isn't science.

That's what people would like folks to believe, but it just isn't so. There was plenty of science before there was peer review. In fact, most of science was done before there was peer review. Science and Nature are more likely than not to pan anything that is not pro-global warming. Because anti-global warming is not science? No, because they've already adopted a position and they're not going to budge.

I have personally witnessed non-scientific intransigence on a paper of my own for Nature. It didn't have anything to do with the science. We completely nailed that part in multiple ways. It was that publishing our paper would mean that Nature would have to admit that they had peer-reviewed and published a paper that was based on a seriously defective set of experiments. The mutation of a transmembrane domain the other researcher had used was not as he had published because the DNA he sent us, which he claimed to have been used in his experiments, had a single base deletion mutation immediately upstream of the TM domain and two base deletions immediately downstream, meaning that this entire region was frame shifted and created a completely different amino acid sequence than was published.

I had created the mutation based on his published sequence and had gotten different results than what he had published. I wrote to him, got a sample of his original and mutated DNA, sequenced them both, and then discovered the deletions that caused the frame shift. At first I thought this could be why he was getting different results. But when I expressed his frame shifted mutation in two different cell lines (one of them the one he used for the paper), I got expression levels that were even worse than when I was using his published sequence that I had inserted in the transmembrane domain.

I used both his published sequence as well as his actual unintentionally frame-shifted mutant to duplicate other experiments he had done, but the results were wholly different.

No one knows what DNA he had actually used to get these results, but it certainly was neither the published sequence nor his accidental frame-shift mutant. He claimed to the reviewers that his "original DNA" had no single base deletions. What he sent to us did. I had it sequenced right out of the tube. In his original paper, he had gone on to do other experiments based on the results he had claimed to have gotten with the mutant. That is, their meaning would have relevance only if his sequence would do what he had claimed it would do. We demonstrated using his cell line and our cell line, using his construct and our construct, that those results could not be obtained.

We couldn't get published because, one of the reviewers said, his paper had done so much more work that we had not "addressed". We said that that other work rested upon results that couldn't be replicated with either his actual DNA or with his published sequence of that DNA and that all that was necessary to do was to demonstrate that.
151 posted on 01/23/2009 6:51:14 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
We couldn't get published because, one of the reviewers said, his paper had done so much more work that we had not "addressed". We said that that other work rested upon results that couldn't be replicated with either his actual DNA or with his published sequence of that DNA and that all that was necessary to do was to demonstrate that.

That sounds like a raw deal. Fight it.

152 posted on 01/23/2009 6:57:26 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Thanks for sharing and of course you’re right; anyone that thinks science is somehow immune to ideology and politics is generally a left wing liberal lunatic themselves trying to undermine science to fit their agenda in the first place.


153 posted on 01/23/2009 6:57:58 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
That sounds like a raw deal. Fight it.

Thanks. Well, let's just say that was a wasted couple years of a post-doc fellowship in a really, really unpleasant laboratory environment, though the confocal microscopy was fun. The funny thing is when I was trying to get in touch with this particular researcher I called his university and asked the department secretary if he was there and she said that he was "still there," with a certain sound in her voice that indicated that they were glad that he soon no longer would be. Ha ha ha.

I was just looking over some of the reviewers' comments. Given what I know about expression levels of muscle acetylcholine receptors in both COS and HEK293 cells, I know they didn't know what they were talking about. If we got normal levels of expression using wild type subunit DNA and failed to show the greater than 50-fold expression level the guy claimed for his mutation (either as published or using his frame-shifted version), the problem in expression wasn't due to our cell-expression system.
154 posted on 01/23/2009 7:19:45 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
I was just looking over some of the reviewers' comments. Given what I know about expression levels of muscle acetylcholine receptors in both COS and HEK293 cells, I know they didn't know what they were talking about. If we got normal levels of expression using wild type subunit DNA and failed to show the greater than 50-fold expression level the guy claimed for his mutation (either as published or using his frame-shifted version), the problem in expression wasn't due to our cell-expression system.

In science evidence wins out. Fight it.

That's what this whole thing is all about--evidence wins out. But sometimes it requires a bit of persistence to overcome human foibles.

If you got bad reviews from just one reviewer--get a couple of good reviews from recognized experts on your own and resubmit the article with those reviews attached. Have those positive reviewers contact the editor. There are a lot of ways to get around a single bad review. Go for it!

155 posted on 01/23/2009 7:53:19 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Because anti-global warming is not science? No, because they've already adopted a position and they're not going to budge.

It was that publishing our paper would mean that Nature would have to admit that they had peer-reviewed and published a paper that was based on a seriously defective set of experiments.

Sounds like there's more ego involved than anything.

I've noticed that there's a tendency when some change coming down the pike in scientific thinking, that one never hears the words, *We were wrong about _______*.

Usually what seems to happen is that the issue is dropped for an appropriate amount of time and then the new proclamations are made without reference to the older ones as if the new ones had been what scientists had believed all along.

I've noticed it to be especially prevalent in the medical community and in regards to global warming/cooling, but maybe that's only because they are so prominent.

It sure rots that you got such a raw deal on all your work for what probably amounts to politics.

156 posted on 01/23/2009 7:53:58 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-156 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson