Laelaps

This Blog Has Moved

Laelaps is back up and running at my author website, http://brianswitek.com. Go there for new posts and updates on where this blog will ultimately settle. – Brian

Update (09/14/10): After a few months of blogging on my own, I’m proud to say that Laelaps has made the jump over to the new WIRED Science blogging network. Click here to check it out.

Comments

  1. #1 Raymond Minton
    July 15, 2010

    As a long time Laelaps enthusiast, I’ll definitely be checking your new site out, Brian.

  2. #2 ranggaw0636
    July 19, 2010

    i’m just reading your blog here, but after reading some article, i think maybe i should check your new site

  3. #3 konteyner
    October 24, 2010

    Çok fazla yorum kısa bir süre içinde sizden teslim edilmiştir. Kısa bir süre sonra tekrar deneyin.
    Orijinal giriş dön
    http://www.kartalprefabrik.com

  4. #4 cepmaster
    December 23, 2010

    yorum yazalım lınk alalım dedım
    http://www.cepmaster.org

  5. #5 lig tv izle
    December 24, 2010

    ne oldu ya bu güzelim site kapanıyor mu..
    I love this blog..ı hope it wont close

  6. #6 lig tv izle
    December 24, 2010

    üstteki commentte urlmi yanlış verdim…düzgün url bunda..

  7. #7 hiphop
    January 9, 2011

    Driving home from work this evening, listening to Material World on BBC Radio 4, and whooaaa, I hear one of the interviewees on the subject of Darwinius and the hype is a Mr Brian Switek. Excellent going to get interviewed as a subject matter expert. And your blog got a quick mention too.

    I found the trailer they aired of David Attenborough’s TV program on the find rather frustrating. The documentary isn’t showing until next Tuesday – so I guess I should wait until I have seen it, but the trailer was all melodramatic and going on about its great significance for every person alive. How disappointing – that this ridiculously over the top claim should be associated with Sir David, as many watchers will assume that if he said it it must be true. I expected better.

    I must though reiterate, that while I do agree that this paper claims a signicance for this fossil in terms of human ancestry that are just not justified by the evidence, this is not a failure of peer review. I absolutely disagree with David M’s comments on peer review. A peer review process that blocks opposing views or prevents challenges to prevailing paradigms is at least as bad as, and in my view more insidiously dangerous than, a peer review process that allows sloppy logic and poor methodology through. At least the latter becomes obvious, the former gets sunk without trace.

    On the phylogenetic analysis matter, while clearly not required in a publication of new taxon, this paper does make some rather sweeping claims about phylogeny, which one would expect to be supported by a phylogenetic analysis. It’s not a requirement, but is a not unreasonable expectation.

    I did think Brian’s choice of words (eg “shoddy scolarship”) was a little harsh, but to be honest probably justified. I guess being brutally honest while also being tactful is not easy.

  8. #8 dizi
    February 23, 2011

    Driving home from work this evening, listening to Material World on BBC Radio 4, and whooaaa, I hear one of the interviewees on the subject of Darwinius and the hype is a Mr Brian Switek. Excellent going to get interviewed as a subject matter expert. And your blog got a quick mention too.

    I found the trailer they aired of David Attenborough’s TV program on the find rather frustrating. The documentary isn’t showing until next Tuesday – so I guess I should wait until I have seen it, but the trailer was all melodramatic and going on about its great significance for every person alive. How disappointing – that this ridiculously over the top claim should be associated with Sir David, as many watchers will assume that if he said it it must be true. I expected better.

    I must though reiterate, that while I do agree that this paper claims a signicance for this fossil in terms of human ancestry that are just not justified by the evidence, this is not a failure of peer review. I absolutely disagree with David M’s comments on peer review. A peer review process that blocks opposing views or prevents challenges to prevailing paradigms is at least as bad as, and in my view more insidiously dangerous than, a peer review process that allows sloppy logic and poor methodology through. At least the latter becomes obvious, the former gets sunk without trace.

    On the phylogenetic analysis matter, while clearly not required in a publication of new taxon, this paper does make some rather sweeping claims about phylogeny, which one would expect to be supported by a phylogenetic analysis. It’s not a requirement, but is a not unreasonable expectation.

    I did think Brian’s choice of words (eg “shoddy scolarship”) was a little harsh, but to be honest probably justified. I guess being brutally honest while also being tactful is to gastirizon

  9. #9 bioser
    April 4, 2011

    are completely natural with special content, is a realDid he problem, I wonder why that would eliminate the complaints. Is it possible to prevent the formation of hemorrhoids bontavi risk in people with hemorrhoids. The most important ingredient in the nettle leaves to treat basuru olacakmıdır enough. Bontavi gift from nature to completely eliminate your frustrations reklammı hakikattmi filled into capsules.

  10. #10 rre5r
    April 9, 2011

    yes right
    A fatal flaw was that they failed to have any representative posts ready to go up when the blog went live.

  11. #11 ahmet
    April 11, 2011

    but the trailer was all melodramatic and going on about its great significance for every person alive

  12. #12 altın çilek
    April 11, 2011

    A peer review process that blocks opposing views or prevents challenges to prevailing paradigms is at least as bad as, and in my view more insidiously dangerous than, a peer review process that allows sloppy logic and poor methodology through.

  13. #13 Tandblekning
    May 6, 2011

    i’m just reading your blog here, but after reading some article and i must say that iam impressed. Good job!

  14. #14 internet dizi
    May 7, 2011

    Driving home from work this evening, listening to Material World on BBC Radio 4, and whooaaa, I hear one of the interviewees on the subject of Darwinius and the hype is a Mr Brian Switek. Excellent going to get interviewed as a subject matter expert. And your blog got a quick mention too.

    I found the trailer they aired of David Attenborough’s TV program on the find rather frustrating. The documentary isn’t showing until next Tuesday – so I guess I should wait until I have seen it, but the trailer was all melodramatic and going on about its great significance for every person alive. How disappointing – that this ridiculously over the top claim should be associated with Sir David, as many watchers will assume that if he said it it must be true. I expected better.

  15. #15 Bläck Patron
    May 12, 2011

    Great blog and it will probably be even better at the new location.

  16. #16 Färgpatroner
    May 19, 2011

    i’m just reading your blog here, but after reading some article and i must say that iam impressed. Good job!

  17. #17 micro lån
    May 19, 2011

    Thanks for letting us know.

  18. #18 internet dizi
    May 19, 2011

    I found the trailer they aired of David Attenborough’s TV program on the find rather frustrating. The documentary isn’t showing until next Tuesday – so I guess I should wait until I have seen it, but the trailer was all melodramatic and going on about its great significance for every person alive. How disappointing – that this ridiculously over the top claim should be associated with Sir David, as many watchers will assume that if he said it it must be true. I expected better.

  19. #19 Blogg tandblekning
    May 26, 2011

    Thanks for letting us know.

  20. #20 Kläder för bebisar
    May 26, 2011

    Thanks for letting us know this, will follow you on the new blog.

  21. #21 av tüfekleri
    July 14, 2011

    I’m no scientist, but I know of the ugly history of ‘missing links’ – or call them what you will. Ida will rank up there along side all the fakes promulgated by ideology and greed (but once she’s on the textbook covers she’ll be there as a goddess for 100 years). There’s a ‘science sucker’ born ever minute, blindly believing the ‘facts’ of science. How can you when homo sapiens are so inextricably involved in the process? I’d like to see the scientific community grow a backbone like Ida and rise up to shut down this hype driven farce of a lemur fossil.

  22. #22 otomatik av tüfekleri
    July 14, 2011

    Driving home from work this evening, listening to Material World on BBC Radio 4, and whooaaa, I hear one of the interviewees on the subject of Darwinius and the hype is a Mr Brian Switek. Excellent going to get interviewed as a subject matter expert. And your blog got a quick mention too.

  23. #23 av malzemeleri
    July 14, 2011

    I did think Brian’s choice of words (eg “shoddy scolarship”) was a little harsh, but to be honest probably justified. I guess being brutally honest while also being tactful is not easy.

  24. #24 cambalkon
    July 14, 2011

    I must though reiterate, that while I do agree that this paper claims a signicance for this fossil in terms of human ancestry that are just not justified by the evidence, this is not a failure of peer review. I absolutely disagree with David M’s comments on peer review. A peer review process that blocks opposing views or prevents challenges to prevailing paradigms is at least as bad as, and in my view more insidiously dangerous than, a peer review process that allows sloppy logic and poor methodology through. At least the latter becomes obvious, the former gets sunk without trace.

  25. #25 cambalkon
    July 14, 2011

    A peer review process that blocks opposing views or prevents challenges to prevailing paradigms is at least as bad as, and in my view more insidiously dangerous than, a peer review process that allows sloppy logic and poor methodology through.

  26. #26 cambalkon
    July 14, 2011

    i’m just reading your blog here, but after reading some article and i must say that iam impressed. Good job.

  27. #27 çankırı
    July 14, 2011

    I must though reiterate, that while I do agree that this paper claims a signicance for this fossil in terms of human ancestry that are just not justified by the evidence, this is not a failure of peer review. I absolutely disagree with David M’s comments on peer review. A peer review process that blocks opposing views or prevents challenges to prevailing paradigms is at least as bad as, and in my view more insidiously dangerous than, a peer review process that allows sloppy logic and poor methodology through. At least the latter becomes obvious, the former gets sunk without trace.

  28. #28 kıyma makinası
    July 14, 2011

    A peer review process that blocks opposing views or prevents challenges to prevailing paradigms is at least as bad as, and in my view more insidiously dangerous than, a peer review process that allows sloppy logic and poor methodology through.

  29. I did think Brian’s choice of words (eg “shoddy scolarship”) was a little harsh, but to be honest probably justified. I guess being brutally honest while also being tactful is not easy.

  30. #30 araç kiralama
    July 25, 2011

    I’m no scientist, but I know of the ugly history of ‘missing links’ – or call them what you will. Ida will rank up there along side all the fakes promulgated by ideology and greed (but once she’s on the textbook covers she’ll be there as a goddess for 100 years). There’s a ‘science sucker’ born ever minute, blindly believing the ‘facts’ of science. How can you when homo sapiens are so inextricably involved in the process? I’d like to see the scientific community grow a backbone like Ida and rise up to shut down this hype driven farce of a lemur fossil.

  31. #31 şenol balaban
    September 1, 2011

    I must though reiterate, that while I do agree that this paper claims a signicance for this fossil in terms of human ancestry that are just not justified by the evidence, this is not a failure of peer review. I absolutely disagree with David M’s comments on peer review. A peer review process that blocks opposing views or prevents challenges to prevailing paradigms is at least as bad as, and in my view more insidiously dangerous than, a peer review process that allows sloppy logic and poor methodology through. At least the latter becomes obvious, the former gets sunk without trace.

  32. #32 araç kiralama ankara
    October 16, 2011

    pposing views or prevents challenges to prevailing paradigms is at least as bad as, and in my view more insidiously dangerous than, a peer review process that allows sloppy logic a

  33. #33 alfajri
    October 27, 2011

    okey, I know

  34. I’m no scientist, but I know of the ugly history of ‘missing links’ – or call them what you will. Ida will rank up there along side all the fakes promulgated by ideology and greed (but once she’s on the textbook covers she’ll be there as a goddess for 100 years). There’s a ‘science sucker’ born ever minute, blindly believing the ‘facts’ of science. How can you when homo sapiens are so inextricably involved in the process? I’d like to see the scientific community grow a backbone like Ida and rise up to shut down this hype driven farce of a lemur fossil.

  35. #35 Düğün fotoğrafçısı
    November 5, 2011

    I must though reiterate, that while I do agree that this paper claims a signicance for this fossil in terms of human ancestry that are just not justified by the evidence, this is not a failure of peer review. I absolutely disagree with David M’s comments on peer review. A peer review process that blocks opposing views or prevents challenges to prevailing paradigms is at least as bad as, and in my view more insidiously dangerous than, a peer review process that allows sloppy logic and poor methodology through. At least the latter becomes obvious, the former gets sunk without trace.

  36. #36 gelinlik
    April 1, 2012

    A peer review process that blocks opposing views or prevents challenges to prevailing paradigms is at least as bad as, and in my view more insidiously dangerous than, a peer review process that allows sloppy logic and poor methodology through.

  37. #37 başbakan
    April 1, 2012

    This paper does make some rather sweeping claims about phylogeny, which one would expect to be supported by a phylogenetic analysis. It’s not a requirement, but is a not unreasonable expectation.

  38. #38 hekim konteyner
    April 17, 2012

    hekim konteyner ürünleri hakkında tüm detaylı bilgiler

  39. #39 en ucuz
    April 30, 2012

    I’m no scientist, but I know of the ugly history of ‘missing links’ – or call them what you will. Ida will rank up there along side all the fakes promulgated by ideology and greed (but once she’s on the textbook covers she’ll be there as a goddess for 100 years). There’s a ‘science sucker’ born ever minute, blindly believing the ‘facts’ of science. How can you when homo sapiens are so inextricably involved in the process? I’d like to see the scientific community grow a backbone like Ida and rise up to shut down this hype driven farce of a lemur fossil.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!