This is the way science should always work:

| 11 Comments

Reed Cartwright just forwarded me (and a few others) an email that was just sent out to an evolutionary biology mailing list. I’m going to quote it in full below. Don’t worry if you don’t understand the technical terms in there - you don’t need to know what Bayesian methods are, or how they’re used in phylogenetics, or even what phylogenetics is to understand why this email is important, and why all concerned should be proud of themselves.

Read more (at The Questionable Authority):

11 Comments

You’re missing the link to your blog from PT.

I’ve gone ahead and fixed the link.

Thanks Reed, I was already groaning and moaning about the “missing link” :-)

Reminds me of the reported discovery of element 118 some 8 years ago, that got retracted a few months after the report. (Though it has been “re”discovered since then.)

Henry

come on! ID works that way too!

brad daly Wrote:

ID works that way too!

False dichotomy since the post was about science, and unsubstantiated since there is no official and unequivocal ‘works of ID’ to look at and consequently no example proposed here.

This is at the usual level of ‘reasoning’ we are used to see from creationists. I.e. none that can be detected.

TL Wrote:

False dichotomy since the post was about science

Seems my reasoning skills is on a hike as well. Fortunately I am in a position to do something about it, while ID is hopelessly lost in the strategy of being negative on science. :-)

That there is a false dichotomy is true, but the bit about science should be that ID was irrelevant here (for the same basic reason).

Thanks, Reed. I’m a little jet lagged right now.

come on! ID works that way too!

Example? And are you implying that ID isn’t science? And if so, how is it relevant, since this was about science, not ID?

Since Michael Behe would probably agree that that’s how science should work, the obvious question is whether he has ever retracted the period he insterted in Jerry Coyne’s sentence 11 years ago.

This is especially timely as Coyne has just reviewed Behe’s latest book (see thread below).

Frank, that was a whopper! Behe looks less and less like he ever participated in science, he must have had a total brain melt somewhere on the way. (Obviously. :-)

Thanks for sharing.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mike Dunford published on June 13, 2007 3:19 PM.

OpenLab 2006 Reviewed for Nature was the previous entry in this blog.

Behe Blows It (in other news, dog bites man) is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter