Posted by Brian Switek on July 14, 2010 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.
As a long time Laelaps enthusiast, I’ll definitely be checking your new site out, Brian.
i’m just reading your blog here, but after reading some article, i think maybe i should check your new site
Çok fazla yorum kısa bir süre içinde sizden teslim edilmiştir. Kısa bir süre sonra tekrar deneyin.
Orijinal giriş dön
http://www.kartalprefabrik.com
yorum yazalım lınk alalım dedım
http://www.cepmaster.org
ne oldu ya bu güzelim site kapanıyor mu..
I love this blog..ı hope it wont close
üstteki commentte urlmi yanlış verdim…düzgün url bunda..
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.
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
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.
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.
i’m just reading your blog here, but after reading some article and i must say that iam impressed. Good job!
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.
Great blog and it will probably be even better at the new location.
i’m just reading your blog here, but after reading some article and i must say that iam impressed. Good job!
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.
Thanks for letting us know.
Thanks for letting us know this, will follow you on the new blog.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
hekim konteyner ürünleri hakkında tüm detaylı bilgiler
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.
July 15, 2010
July 19, 2010
October 24, 2010
December 23, 2010
December 24, 2010
January 9, 2011
February 23, 2011
April 4, 2011
April 9, 2011
April 11, 2011
April 11, 2011
May 6, 2011
May 7, 2011
May 12, 2011
May 19, 2011
May 19, 2011
July 14, 2011
July 25, 2011
September 1, 2011
October 16, 2011
October 27, 2011
April 17, 2012
April 30, 2012