Hoaxes

Loudmouth · Sep 3, 2015

whois said:
the only thing i can suggest is for you to go crying on the mods shoulders.
maybe they will forbid me from posting anything about barbara too, just like they did with koonin and "the origin at 150".
like the person that PM'ed me said "i'm deeply troubled in the direction this forum is taking".
it won't help you though, there are many scientists that take a dim view of the modern synthesis.

The Koonin paper is found free online. There is nothing stopping you from quoting it and including a link to the full paper, just like this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

The Cadet · Sep 3, 2015

whois said:
the only thing i can suggest is for you to go crying on the mods shoulders.
maybe they will forbid me from posting anything about barbara too, just like they did with koonin and "the origin at 150".
like the person that PM'ed me said "i'm deeply troubled in the direction this forum is taking".
it won't help you though, there are many scientists that take a dim view of the modern synthesis.

A simple "I was wrong about Barbara McClintock's publishing history" would be fine too.

whois · Sep 3, 2015

The Cadet said:
A simple "I was wrong about Barbara McClintock's publishing history" would be fine too.

sorry, i'm in no position to call barbaras biographer a liar.
i will leave such things to you and loudmouth.
the funny thing is, this sort of thing doesn't surprise me in the least when dealing with the issues of evolution.

lasthero · Sep 3, 2015

whois said:
sorry, i'm in no position to call barbaras biographer a liar.
i will leave such things to you and loudmouth.
the funny thing is, this sort of thing doesn't surprise me in the least when dealing with the issues of evolution.

What biography did you read?

whois · Sep 3, 2015

lasthero said:
What biography did you read?

what i posted about barbaras publishing history comes from:
A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock.
W.H. Freeman San Francisco, CA, USA.
authored by: Keller E.F. (1983).

Loudmouth · Sep 3, 2015

whois said:
sorry, i'm in no position to call barbaras biographer a liar.
i will leave such things to you and loudmouth.
the funny thing is, this sort of thing doesn't surprise me in the least when dealing with the issues of evolution.

There is also the possibility that you are honestly mistaken about what the biographer wrote. What I do know is that there is a paper written by Barbara McClintock in 1961 in the peer reviewed journal American Naturalist.

Loudmouth · Sep 3, 2015

whois said:
what i posted about barbaras publishing history comes from:
A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock.
W.H. Freeman San Francisco, CA, USA.
authored by: Keller E.F. (1983).

If you have the time, could you post a quote from the biography where it says that McClintock did not publish papers after 1953?

whois · Sep 3, 2015

Loudmouth said:
If you have the time, could you post a quote from the biography where it says that McClintock did not publish papers after 1953?

the following comes from Exp Physiol 98.8 (2013) pp 1235–1243 and gives kellers book as the source:
She won her prize for physiology or medicine in 1983 over 40 years after she had made the ground-breaking
discovery of chromosome transposition (now called mobile genetic elements).
She worked on maize, and early reactions to her work were so sceptical that she stopped publishing her research in 1953.

bhsmte · Sep 3, 2015

The Cadet said:
You're the only one holding it up, apparently even after it's shown to be wrong. So yeah, it's on you, as much as you don't like that idea.

After all the experience we have had, would you expect anything different at this point?

The good news is, this poster has been exposed countless times and is likely fooling no one.

Loudmouth · Sep 3, 2015

whois said:
the following comes from Exp Physiol 98.8 (2013) pp 1235–1243 and gives kellers book as the source:
She won her prize for physiology or medicine in 1983 over 40 years after she had made the ground-breaking
discovery of chromosome transposition (now called mobile genetic elements).
She worked on maize, and early reactions to her work were so sceptical that she stopped publishing her research in 1953.

How do you explain the papers published after 1953?

bhsmte · Sep 3, 2015

Loudmouth said:
How do you explain the papers published after 1953?

Pretend they don't exist?

Willtor · Sep 3, 2015

Loudmouth said:
How do you explain the papers published after 1953?

This is the key. Papers on this topic published after 1953 mean that anybody who says publishing stopped in that year is wrong (or they have been misunderstood). How can the presentation of such publications not change someone's mind?

bhsmte · Sep 3, 2015

Willtor said:
This is the key. Papers on this topic published after 1953 mean that anybody who says publishing stopped in that year is wrong (or they have been misunderstood). How can the presentation of such publications not change someone's mind?

Easy, when they are in denial.

Willtor · Sep 3, 2015

bhsmte said:
Easy, when they are in denial.

I also think people (by and large) don't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, or any of the related ways of categorizing input. I've argued with people about what some historical person thought about a topic using primary sources, and they contradict my arguments with pamphlets they've read. The idea that the primary source (in this case, the research paper) is the thing, itself, doesn't present itself as intrinsically meaningful beyond what some third party has written about it.

If Adam says Hamlet dies at the end, and Bob says he heard Clark say Hamlet didn't, Bob isn't receptive to Adam's citation of the play, itself, because Bob doesn't understand that the play is more important than what Clark says about it. The denial is Bob's fear that acquiescing means calling Clark a liar. But even before that, Bob doesn't recognize that Clark's comments about the play don't trump the play, itself.

whois · Sep 3, 2015

Loudmouth said:
How do you explain the papers published after 1953?

my guess is that these publications are reprints of previous work.

i fail to believe that keller would make this stuff up.
keller had to have gotten this information from barbara.

bhsmte · Sep 3, 2015

Willtor said:
I also think people (by and large) don't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, or any of the related ways of categorizing input. I've argued with people about what some historical person thought about a topic using primary sources, and they contradict my arguments with pamphlets they've read. The idea that the primary source (in this case, the research paper) is the thing, itself, doesn't present itself as intrinsically meaningful beyond what some third party has written about it.

If Adam says Hamlet dies at the end, and Bob says he heard Clark say Hamlet didn't, Bob isn't receptive to Adam's citation of the play, itself, because Bob doesn't understand that the play is more important than what Clark says about it. The denial is Bob's fear that acquiescing means calling Clark a liar. But even before that, Bob doesn't recognize that Clark's comments about the play don't trump the play, itself.

I understand, but in this particular case, I think we have enough clues to show, it is just outright denial and confirmation bias, to protect a position the poster has.

Loudmouth · Sep 3, 2015

Willtor said:
This is the key. Papers on this topic published after 1953 mean that anybody who says publishing stopped in that year is wrong (or they have been misunderstood). How can the presentation of such publications not change someone's mind?

To be fair, most of those papers were not published by peer reviewed journals, and many more were abstracts for symposiums/conferences. However, at least one is undoubtedly in a peer reviewed journal. Given McClintock's previous publication record, it isn't too much of an exaggeration to say that she stopped publishing. It is also worth mentioning that she nearly stopped submitting papers for publication. It wasn't that the journals refused to publish them. Rather, she didn't send papers for review or publication.

In the case of McClintock, it was a self imposed exile from the peer reviewed literature.

Loudmouth · Sep 3, 2015

whois said:
my guess is that these publications are reprints of previous work.

The paper in American Naturalist may have been more of a review paper that described her earlier work instead of a primary research paper. Nonetheless, it is still a publication.

i fail to believe that keller would make this stuff up.
keller had to have gotten this information from barbara.

Keller could have looked at her CV, which is what a responsible writer would have done. Or perhaps Keller was just exaggerating, as I suggest above.

More importantly, did McClintock nearly stop being published because journals refused to publish it, or was it because she refused to submit papers for review?

whois · Sep 3, 2015

Willtor said:
If Adam says Hamlet dies at the end, and Bob says he heard Clark say Hamlet didn't, Bob isn't receptive to Adam's citation of the play, itself, because Bob doesn't understand that the play is more important than what Clark says about it. The denial is Bob's fear that acquiescing means calling Clark a liar. But even before that, Bob doesn't recognize that Clark's comments about the play don't trump the play, itself.

10 to 1 says you will renege on the above explanation when it comes to what ayala said in science.
science never does print any sort of errata or retractions in this matter.

Willtor · Sep 3, 2015

whois said:
10 to 1 says you will renege on the above explanation when it comes to what ayala said in science.
science never does print any sort of errata or retractions in this matter.

Can you rephrase this? I'm having a hard time parsing.

Hoaxes

Contributor

SO COOL

rational

Newbie

rational

Contributor

Contributor

rational

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Newbie

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

rational

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

rational

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Similar threads