Daniel Smith
Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
| Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 29 2008,11:22) | | Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 29 2008,13:52) | | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 27 2008,18:52) | OK Daniel. I've finished the Denton et al. paper and would dream of critiquing many elements of it. I don't intend to actually do that, however.
Suffice it to say that the paper is itself massively saltational: even accepting their description of protein folding (which I am unable to evaluate, and therefore stipulate as accurate), you'd need Robert Craig's motorcycle to accomplish their subsequent completely unjustified leap to the wishful hope that "all organic forms and indeed the whole pattern of life may finally prove to be the determined end of physics and life a necessary feature of the fundamental order of nature" (p. 338). And I had to laugh as they declared their relentlessly Platonic interpretation of these phenomena, hard won by means of a fitful nap in the armchair*, "A remarkable, even historic discovery." Hope springs eternal, I suppose.
*A quick scan of the references indeed shows that none of the authors have themselves done any empirical work on protein folding - not that they felt was worth citing in this paper, at any rate. |
Interesting Bill. You say that you "would dream of critiquing" the paper, but that you "don't intend to actually do that", then you go ahead and do it anyway: "completely unjustified leap"? "wishful hope"? "I had to laugh"? "fitful nap in the armchair"? So even though you concede that some of the paper is accurate (the highly technical parts that are over your head), you dare to critique their conclusions.
So I guess we're in agreement then that it is OK to critique the parts of a paper we understand while conceding the parts we don't.
That's really all I wanted to hear from you. Thank you. |
Daniel, one needn't be expert in protein folding to recognize that the authors have conducted no empirical research (hence the armchair). And one needn't be an expert in protein folding to recognize that they make unjustified leaps of illogic and overgeneralization, even were one to stipulate the facts on protein folding as they present them.
A more complete critique will entail a lot of work and a lot of writing - as I actually have a lot to say about the paper. If you are truly interested I'll undertake components of that critique. That will take some time. Before undertaking that, I'd be interested in your own take on the paper. A thoughtful response will convince me that the time entailed in a critique will be worth investing.
Give me your response; I'll respond in kind. |
You don't seem to get it. We were arguing over whether or not is was OK to critique a paper we didn't fully understand. You said it wasn't. You even went so far as to say you "wouldn't dream of" doing such a thing.
You then turned around and did exactly that when the paper didn't fit with your chosen theory - thus proving my point.
That's really all I wanted from you Bill.
You've vindicated me and proven yourself a hypocrite. Thanks again Bill.
--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins
|
