Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (JLT @ Dec. 18 2011,08:08)|
|Bio-Complexity published three articles in 2010. Each of these articles has been cited twice according to Google Scholar. |
Gauger was cited by a blog post and in an announcement.
Montanez article was cited by Ewert, who's second author of the Montanez article, and by Robert Sheldon, who posts occasionally at Uncommon Descent.
Axe's paper was cited by Sanford in The Journal of Creation and in an "article" at viXra.org, which "has been founded by scientists who find they are unable to submit their articles to arXiv.org because of Cornell University's policy of endorsements and moderation designed to filter out e-prints that they consider inappropriate." LOL.
If any of these articles were contributing anything worthwhile, they would've been cited outside of their little circlejerk. As it is, they aren't cited at all. That doesn't mean nobody can "disprove" them, it means there is no substance to be disproved.
In a formal debate you would get no points for that argument. Don't get me wrong I do agree with you in every point but:
1) You have not shown that the articles are "unscientific"
2) the measure of citation for items which are on the cutting edge of science might be expected to be low and is in any case really a subjective measure of the value of a study.
3) If I write a theory of the spaghetty flying monster that explains string theory with the use of Zibibop power. Someone with a normal mind has got to denouce the fact that I've lost it especially since I have an organisation that supports the SFM and that I call myself a respectible scientist.
4) If you're ignoring something you either don't know that it exists or if you do it just means that you:
a) Can't find the time to call it rubbish (shameful)
b) Can't find a reason to call it rubbish (verry worring)
c) Can't find a problem with the item and just don't know what to do with it, which would not mean that it is not useful but that you can't understand it. (I believe that this is not the case with the Bio-complexity articles which are in fact junk).
5) Just because google scholar / pub-med do not indicate results it does in no way demish the particular value that a study may have.
What are your thoughts on these points
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin