Hoaxes

[whois]

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.

yes, reprints are publications.
reprints can be published 50 years ago and still be publications.
barbara did not submit these at the time, she submitted them before.

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.

or keller could have asked barbara.
you need to take this sort of thing up with keller.

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?

apparently she stopped publication because of the sceptical reaction to them.

 

[Willtor]

yes, reprints are publications.
reprints can be published 50 years ago and still be publications.
barbara did not submit these at the time, she submitted them before.

or keller could have asked barbara.
you need to take this sort of thing up with keller.

He's got evidence the contrary. It's on Keller to take it up with him.

apparently she stopped publication because of the sceptical reaction to them.

Skepticism is the appropriate response to new developments. I think you mean widespread rejection?

 

[Loudmouth]

yes, reprints are publications.
reprints can be published 50 years ago and still be publications.

What was it reprinted from?

barbara did not submit these at the time, she submitted them before.

Submitted to whom?

you need to take this sort of thing up with keller.

You are the one making the argument, so I will continue to take it up with you.

apparently she stopped publication because of the sceptical reaction to them.

You mean she stopped submitting her research for publication because people were skeptical of it?

 

[The Cadet]

sorry, i'm in no position to call barbaras biographer a liar.

I'm not calling them a liar. I'm saying that they were wrong. And I (and you, and Loudmouth, and Not_By_Chance, and Kent Hovind, and everyone else) is in the position to say that they were wrong. Because they were wrong. It doesn't matter who says it. It doesn't matter if it was McClintock's biographer, McClintock's mother, McClintock herself, or the magical truth fairy who cannot tell a lie making the claim - it's wrong. Blindly accepting authorities when the contradictory evidence is staring you in the face is just a really bad idea.

 

[whois]

honestly, this type of charade doesn't surprise me at all in regards to evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

honestly, this type of charade doesn't surprise me at all in regards to evolution.

I am quite happy with the evidence that has been presented. Is there another topic you would like to address? I don't know about you, but I would prefer to discuss some real science instead of complaints.

 

[Willtor]

honestly, this type of charade doesn't surprise me at all in regards to evolution.

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.

Point taken.

 

[The Cadet]

honestly, this type of charade doesn't surprise me at all in regards to evolution.

What charade? You cited a source. We showed you that that source was demonstrably wrong. You continued to use that source. I mean, maybe that qualifies as a charade? Help me out here, I've got nothing to work with.

 

[whois]

Given McClintock's previous publication record, it isn't too much of an exaggeration to say that she stopped publishing.

thanks for the confirmation.

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.

yes, correct.
she stopped submitting them

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

again correct, and it was because of the scepticism she received.

 

[Loudmouth]

thanks for the confirmation.

Confirmation that your source exaggerated a bit?

yes, correct.
she stopped submitting them

again correct, and it was because of the scepticism she received.

I find this to be interesting. You are saying that scientists should be very skeptical of the Modern Synthesis and not accept it on face value simply because of what is written in a book.

On the flip side, you are saying that scientists should not have been skeptical of McClintock's work and accepted it on face value. All the while, you are accepting what is written in a biography despite the facts in hand.

Are you starting to see the double standard?

 

[whois]

Confirmation that your source exaggerated a bit?



I find this to be interesting. You are saying that scientists should be very skeptical of the Modern Synthesis and not accept it on face value simply because of what is written in a book.

On the flip side, you are saying that scientists should not have been skeptical of McClintock's work and accepted it on face value. All the while, you are accepting what is written in a biography despite the facts in hand.

Are you starting to see the double standard?

i've said this before, you have got to be the king of strawman arguments.
an absolute ace in twisting things around.
fine job bro.

 

[Loudmouth]

i've said this before, you have got to be the king of strawman arguments.

I said that the biographer exaggerated a bit. You are claiming that this is "confirmation". What are you saying it is confirmation of?

Also, why shouldn't scientists be skeptical of McClintock's work?