…and this is a 
Spare me the obsessed. Vincent Fleury is still haranguing me over my review of his bad paper. He argues for a simplistic mechanical view of development, saying "Tetrapods are formed by a flow of cells which has a hyperbolic (saddle) point around the navel. it is not tautological. They form from the navel upwards, and from the navel downwards, with a partial symmetry, quite obvious by the way, once you know it." This is complete nonsense, of course; while cells certainly move in interesting ways, the movement is not sufficient explanation of the phenomena, and it's definitely not true that you can describe development as occurring from the navel outwards.
He's written me again to complain and make some demands.
Dear PZ Myers
I am sorry to inform you that your website is used by a person "Oldcola" for a personal crusade, in which you are enrolled un willingly and manipulated.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/an_ontogeny_of_toilet_drain_be.php#comment-1812597
You should be more careful with your reponsabilities on your forum.
When you have made up your mind about "swirling vortices" I would appreciate the withdrawal of your post against my paper, the explicit and public withdrawal of the word "crackpot", and your apologies altogether.
With warm regards.
Vincent Fleury
The post stands and will not be going away.
I did not use the word "crackpot" even once in my review! I'll use it now, though: Fleury is clearly a crackpot.
No apologies.
Regard that warmly, Vincent!
Vincent Fleury just wrote again. He's going to get legal advice, and then contact me again. With warm regards.
I hope his lawyer is sensible enough to warn him that this is a fight he cannot win, and the more he wrestles with the tar baby of the internet, the crazier he'll look.
Comments
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 11:13 AM
*snortgiggle*
Posted by: Heaventree
|
August 3, 2009 11:14 AM
Why did you omit the sentence where he demands a fancy-pants camera from you as compensation?
Posted by: Bosch's Poodle | August 3, 2009 11:14 AM
Asking Myers for a retraction and an apology is like asking the Pope for a lap dance.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 3, 2009 11:14 AM
Maybe that's true in his case...
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 11:17 AM
And after you tell everybody you're sorry you called him a crackpot, you can buy him a camera.
They laughed at him at the Academy, but he'll show them! The Belly-Button Theory of Cellular Development will not only be vindicated, but it will allow him to take over the world!!!
Crackpot, indeed. Someday you'll see who's the real crackpot ...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 11:17 AM
Gee, Fleury must be a fool and a crank. He writes about a subject not in his field, gets called on it, then defends it against all evidence to the contrary. That is not how science should be done. Such behavior should get him "delabcoated". Science needs a way to toss out crackpots once they get nonscientific.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 3, 2009 11:18 AM
If only crackpots could learn to admit being crackpots.
It would save so much rancor between science and BS. As it is, simply call an IDiot an IDiot is considered "uncivil" by them, in spite of their demonstrable IDiocy, while we're supposed to count as "civil" their host of lies about "censorship" and "commitments to assumptions" that are generally bogus.
I guess that will only happen when crackpots value honesty, but then they wouldn't be crackpots any more.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Ebonmuse | August 3, 2009 11:19 AM
PZ, you ought to set up a gallery listing all the cranks who've sent you blustery legal threats and the outcome of each one. It would be a convenient, one-stop-shopping link to send the next crackpot - give him a better idea of his chances of success in going this route.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
August 3, 2009 11:19 AM
It's as if he was asking you to call him a crackpot.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 3, 2009 11:20 AM
I think he thinks he has only begun to negotiate. The camera demands will come soon, probably.
Right after the facebook defriending.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 3, 2009 11:20 AM
I wonder how many times he stomped his feet while he wrote that?
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 11:21 AM
Eww. Now I won't be having lunch today, thanks.Posted by: Angel Kaida | August 3, 2009 11:22 AM
What does he want you to withdraw the word "crackpot" from, if not your post? The English language?
Posted by: Felix | August 3, 2009 11:22 AM
He should do some blogtv presentations. Seems about the right environment there.
Posted by: dean | August 3, 2009 11:25 AM
"...quite obvious by the way, once you know it."
I believe this part: if you know something, it should be obvious. The rest of his stuff is pure crackpot, however.
Posted by: Zeno | August 3, 2009 11:27 AM
So tetrapods spring from hyperbolic navels? Does this mean that octopods have parabolic navels? That really seems backward to me.
He also says that "saddle points" are "hyperbolic points". You'd think a crackpot would take advantage of the fact that saddle points actually have both hyperbolic and parabolic features. (Or perhaps he nodded off during that unit in calculus III.)
Anyway, it's the sound of the words that matter more than the content. As long as it sounds good.
Posted by: SC "New Post Up at My Blog!" OM | August 3, 2009 11:29 AM
I look forward to a fleury of entertaining responses here.
(sorry)
Posted by: Sili
|
August 3, 2009 11:31 AM
Any genealogists in the house/blog? If I were to venture a guess, I'd have to say that Fleury must be the original form for the name "Pivar" pre-immigration.
Posted by: SEF | August 3, 2009 11:35 AM
This could be a sit-com. Something like "Some
MothersBloggers Do 'Ave 'Em" (you could even steal the theme tune). NB For the information of youngsters/Americans: the eponymous "mother" of the original isn't in it. Instead it's all about the (often self-inflicted) misfortunes of the hapless son and his long-suffering wife. So this would be a contrasting variation in which the character around which things happen is rather sensible (his trophy wife gets to choose whether or not she's long-suffering) and it's the lunatics of the world who inflict themselves upon him, once he's deigned to notice them at all.PZ even has a choice of squidly hats to replace the beret motif.
Posted by: Puck | August 3, 2009 11:38 AM
Oh dear lord, did you read the link to the post he is complaining about, that Oldcola is using this blog for a person crusade? That's a crusade?
*crumbles in laughter*
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
August 3, 2009 11:38 AM
If you go back and look at the original thread, you'll see that Fleury doggedly refuses to answer any questions regarding genetic and molecular ontogeny, insisting that the answers are all in his paper. This, after he dismissed various fields of study as bullshit, and pretty much proclaimed himself a neglected revolutionary.
He said he didn't want to address scientific criticism on this forum, but then won't stop visiting to complain that he's been treated unfairly. He seems to expect us to take him at his word (that he is correct), for no better reason than that he asks it...
Posted by: rrt | August 3, 2009 11:50 AM
Damn, PZ. Nobody does it better.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 3, 2009 11:55 AM
Dear Mr Fleury,
I demand an instant apology* from you for the grave sin of insulting my navel.
Neither my navel (nor I) have ever exaggerated anything in the entire history of the universe!! How dare you call it (or me) hyperbolic!
Say you're sorry or I'll send Celine Dion to serenade you at hourly intervals every night.
Yours with big smoochie kisses, and warm, deep, wet affection,
Dingo Jack.
*oh and one of them disposalable water-proof cameras.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 3, 2009 11:56 AM
To be fair, Oldcola's "crusade" is over here. And it looks like a good one.
Posted by: Blondin | August 3, 2009 11:59 AM
#19 - I once worked in a place where the staff used to give a "Frank Spencer" award to the most deserving colleague occasionally.
Posted by: Ryk | August 3, 2009 12:02 PM
I read the original "crusade". It sounded to me like oldcola was being very generous and polite, all things considered. I am not sure what Fluerry is all worked up about. Most people learn how to accept criticism in kindergarden. Certainly long before they start writing the sort of controversial science papers that are going to invite harsh criticism.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 12:16 PM
What I really have a hard time understanding is why someone who is trying to promote such a clearly controversial idea would ever respond in such a way to the heavy criticism he must surely expect.
That he feels the need to demand retractions from bloggers (and more strangely, blog commenters) speaks to his very weak affiliation with the peer-review process.
If you put forth a controversial idea, and have little or no evidence to back it up other than some strange drawings and odd visual comparisons, you need to expect a pretty high degree of skepticism and ridicule. That Mr. Fleury seems to be taken aback by this just reinforces the general belief here and elsewhere in the scientific community that he need not be taken seriously.
Posted by: MikeM | August 3, 2009 12:17 PM
Note to self: Never piss off PZ Myers.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | August 3, 2009 12:22 PM
Yes, his pot is cracked.
Posted by: Barry | August 3, 2009 12:25 PM
What this post lacks is a video clip as an illustration. May I suggest a spot from Woody Allen’s All You Wanted to Know About Sex, featuring John Carradine’s famous scene: “That’s what they said about me at Masters and Johnston!! But I showed them”!!!!!
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
August 3, 2009 12:29 PM
Y'know, being a physics nerd, I happen to think that physicists can on occasion contribute something useful to biology. If nothing else, we are not afraid of mathematics, so when the modeling gets hairy — in population genetics or spatial ecology or whatever — we aren't likely to lose our heads. The problem with "interdisciplinary" work is that you actually have to know something about the other fellow's discipline, or else you look like a world-class schmuck.
Yes, this is a lesson I've learned through bitter experience.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | August 3, 2009 12:29 PM
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE !
(someone had to say it)
Posted by: Holbach
|
August 3, 2009 12:30 PM
You should have called him a chamberpot; it would accurately describe the contents of his fertile brain.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | August 3, 2009 12:31 PM
ooops... wrong thread
Posted by: co | August 3, 2009 12:42 PM
Somnolent: It's NEVER the wrong thread for that comment.
Posted by: Virgil | August 3, 2009 12:44 PM
"responsable" Hah!
Does that mean you're able to make a response to it?
Posted by: SC "New Posts Up at My Blog!" OM | August 3, 2009 12:53 PM
Old format is back! Hooray!
Posted by: emote_control | August 3, 2009 12:55 PM
I'm attempting to popularize a term that seems to suit this situation quite well.
Perhaps some of you are familiar with the website www.timecube.com. At that site, a very disturbed person has published a rant so epically ridiculous and manic that it has become well-known around the internet as an example of the crazy stuff that shows up when people go off their medication while near a computer.
The time cube website is the acme of nutzo internet rants, but it's certainly not the only one. I am trying to popularize the use of "timecube" as a noun and verb. The noun describes any kind of sprawling, unhinged rant that suggests that the ranter is some kind of crazy person. Bonus points if the rant contains ALL CAPS for emphasis where emphasis makes no sense, or if the font changes randomly throughout the rant. Extra bonus points if the thesis of the rant is "everyone is stupid and deluded except me."
The verb describes the act of inflicting the rant on an unsuspecting public. Usage: "We were having a serious discussion about the moons of Jupiter until GodIsGrate6969 came in and timecubed the thread."
Please do not hesitate to use the term to describe works that meet the above criteria. It is elegantly dismissive and descriptive, and I think it would make a great addition to the lexicon.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | August 3, 2009 12:55 PM
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Extraordinary assertion or extraordinary conviction are not enough to make up for the absence of proof.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | August 3, 2009 1:02 PM
PZ used these words June 17, 2009.
Vincent Fleury used his skill as a physicist to construct the word crackpot from the tools you gave him.
Today, PZ awarded him the prize.
Posted by: SC "New Posts Up at My Blog!" OM | August 3, 2009 1:09 PM
BTW, in case no one's mentioned it, Jason Rosenhouse has Part 2 of his review of Unscientific America up:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2009/08/reviewing_unscientific_america_1.php
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 1:12 PM
oh, yeah... we're well versed with the kookiness that is timecube.com... it's almost the de-facto standard for kook website comparisons around here... the very height of batshit craziness by which all other whackaloon websites are judged.
Posted by: xebecs | August 3, 2009 1:15 PM
I feel strangely compelled to call out:
All together now -- "All we are saying is give peace a chance."
Posted by: JackC
|
August 3, 2009 1:18 PM
There are exactly TWO occurances of teh word "crackpot" in the referenced thread.
The first from frog stating:
The other by... oh my ... seems it was Fleury himself:
Hmm... a bit sensitive perhaps?
JC
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 3, 2009 1:22 PM
Word salad in a cracked pot. I just love how he suggests that you haven't "made up your mind" about the facts!
Oh, by the way - look at what he wrote again. He's asking for a withdrawal of your apology, PZ. I'd give him what he wants if I were you. We wouldn't want the scary crackpot to accuse you of being a meanie poopie-head, after all. Yeah, he might just stomp his feet and stick out his tongue and everything!
Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | August 3, 2009 1:23 PM
Fleury has had two months to address the deficiencies in his paper. Instead he's trying to cover them up.
The man fights like a Scientologist, not a scientist.
Near as I can tell, his postulations (I'll call it a theory when the man does some damn empirical testing) fail to address any of the body forms other than tetrapods, all of which go through similar developmental stages early on.
Honestly, this blog belongs to the King of the Motherfucking SQUID, any assertions about limb development in embryology are going to have to explain at minimum mollusks. And to be truly comprehensive, it also needs to cover arthropods, fish, and probably some other things I've forgotten, in addition to tetrapods.
So, pretty much everything in animalia. Get to work Fleury, you've got a WEALTH of phenomena to explain! It's an embarrassment of riches for any researcher that wants to produce more publications.
Of course, Fleury hasn't yet explained any of this. He can't even demonstrate that his explanation in a single case, never mind for generally for all tetrapods.
It should be trivial to demonstrate this with a simple experiment. Make a prediction of what happens if you subtly disrupt embryonic development in a specific way, according to fluid dynamics. Change pressure or viscosity a bit somewhere, you're the fluid dynamics expert, use your expertise. If the prediction MATCHES the observed effect, your hypothesis would certainly merit further consideration.
And don't tell me it can't be done. Biologists experiment on embryos all the time.
So show us. Show the world. Get experimental verification. I'm sure when the results are replicated and conventional explanations are shown to be insufficient that PZ will be the first to admit that you're right and he's wrong. And won't that be a nice feeling?
Running around demanding apologies and retractions is quite simply a waste of time, and does not advance scientific knowledge in any way. It makes it look like you're developing a persecution complex.
TLDR; Independent replication of experimental results which match predictions generated with fluid dynamics or GTFO.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | August 3, 2009 1:24 PM
LOON ALERT!!!111!!11!!! LEVEL INFINFITY!!111!!!1!!
Posted by: Kismet | August 3, 2009 1:26 PM
Watch out for Vincent's Fury, it's the Akwokalypse #2.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 3, 2009 1:32 PM
A quickie search shows that this thread contains the only mention of "swirling vortices" on Pharyngula. Obviously, our esteemed host has a major research project ahead of him.
Will he start by investigating the eddying currents formed by cephalopod locomotion, or save those for dessert?
Posted by: Anomym | August 3, 2009 1:33 PM
Maybe he'd prefer 'psychoceramic' to 'crackpot'.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | August 3, 2009 1:34 PM
PZ: I am not a biologist, or even in possession of any postsecondary education in biology. I have but a lowly undergraduate degree in computer science. Despite that, I always enjoy your posts. Watching you take someone down in such a brutal, yet entertaining way always lightens my mood. However, I am certainly relieved to have never been caught in your crosshairs!
Posted by: Lynna | August 3, 2009 1:37 PM
SC @41: Thanks for the reminder about Jason Rosenhouse's part 2 of the long review. Rosenhouse has done a great job at getting to the heart of the problem with M&K's worldview. I especially liked this paragraph:
Rosenhouse also quoted some research in the endnotes from M&K's book. I'd like to see more on that research.
Posted by: F | August 3, 2009 1:37 PM
Oh, gee, yeah. That Oldcola sure is on a personal crusade. /sarcasm
WTF is Fleury on about?
Posted by: MrFire | August 3, 2009 1:41 PM
Please forgive me if this sulkfest interview with Fleury has been linked here before. He seems to have a rather dreamy grip on reality.
Fleury appears to admit here that he more interested in daydreaming than in pragmatic science. And he has the gall to try and bring his countrymen down with him.
Then there is this strange, sophomoric rant concerning PZ:
Guess they have your number, PZ. By the way, did you know that we are all shitty people over here? Look how we get nailed:
That last sentence blasts out of the irony atmosphere, and into some wholly unknown dimension.
Doesn't Ray Comfort come out with reasoning like this? I don't pretend to be at all versed in embryonic development, but from reading that, I feel like all I have to do is take any oocyte I please, swoosh it around some particular way, and I could have myself a dinosaur. Or a sheep. Or a supermodel. He talks vaguely of 'genetic parameters' that may guide the outcome - but isn't that a concession that molecular biology is what's really calling the shots?
Here's his final thought, by the way:
Posted by: Lynna | August 3, 2009 1:43 PM
JackC @ 44:
So, this means that frog is responsable (spelling courtesy of Fleury) for escalating the verbal fisticuffs. And it was not even one of frog's pithier insults. In fact, the comment could be read as sort of letting Fleury off the hook.
Still, I think frog should send Fleury a camera.
Posted by: Lynna | August 3, 2009 1:43 PM
JackC @ 44:
So, this means that frog is responsable (spelling courtesy of Fleury) for escalating the verbal fisticuffs. And it was not even one of frog's pithier insults. In fact, the comment could be read as sort of letting Fleury off the hook.
Still, I think frog should send Fleury a camera.
Posted by: Lynna | August 3, 2009 1:44 PM
@45
LOL. Good catch.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 3, 2009 1:51 PM
The Howard Stern of sciencebloggers? LOL! Because of all the nekkid cephalopods?
Posted by: Lynna | August 3, 2009 1:59 PM
PZ, you had better cease this habit of being open-minded. Stop introducing us to new ideas. Otherwise, we're all going to start calling you "Sissy Pants!"
Or, here's another option: if you insist on introducing new ideas to your crazed commenters, make sure you do so with your critical faculties turned off. And don't give the microphone to any of us that have used the word "crackpot" in the past, or that may use the word "crackpot" in the future. Uh-oh. I just crackpotted twice in one post.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 2:02 PM
Re: MrFire's #54 Mazur / Fleury interview.
Wow... what a glorious pity party! Why weren't we invited?
What a doofus. I can only picture this being said in the voice of Sacha Baron Cohen as Jean Girard in "Talladega Nights"...
"You Ameree-cans and you're pompous pragmatism... we Fraahhhnch see things on a much deeper level, Rickee Bobeee... I spit at you... pthew."
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 3, 2009 2:07 PM
You can't see the nekkid ladies on the Howard Stern radio show, either. But yeah, the cephalopods are in the studio, and they do take their tops off when I ask them to, and they dance naked on my desk.
You just have to use your imagination when you read my posts.
Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | August 3, 2009 2:10 PM
MrFire wrote:
That would be another great experiment to do! Surely if this vortex business is accurate, it should be possible to replicate limb but formation in a controlled experiment without any of those messy genes, proteins and whatnot?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 2:13 PM
By the way, what a disgraceful job of journalistic integrity by an interviewer displayed by Mazur... what kind of interviewer / reporter (as her role is described in her short bio piece at the bottom) interjects her own self-serving opinionated diatribes in the middle of an interview?
Thoroughly worthless piece of self-congratulatory tripe. I've rarely seen so many verbal back-pats and sympathetic hugs in one "interview". Just a disgrace.
Then I read her bio at the bottom... last line: "She has been a guest on McLaughlin, Charlie Rose and various Fox Television News programs.
Ahh... now it makes sense.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | August 3, 2009 2:16 PM
Hey Vincent! Regard this warmly.
Posted by: SEF | August 3, 2009 2:22 PM
Ah, French can-can-dancing cephalopods in neat Cartesian rows rather than Fleury flurries of polar vortices. More crystallographic than fractal.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 3, 2009 2:48 PM
That is hilarious! :>I should have finished eating before reading.
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 3, 2009 2:52 PM
This post is another example of the one thing I've always admired about you, PZ...you never mince words.
No beating around the bush, no hyperbole, no innuendo, no pretentiousness, no apologies (unless deserved,) just saying it like it is; based on the evidence forthwith. Nice!
Posted by: Terry
|
August 3, 2009 2:55 PM
"I did not use the word "crackpot" even once in my review! I'll use it now, though: Fleury is clearly a crackpot."
I hate it when you make me spit my coffee all over my brand new keyboard. That was too funny.
Posted by: Urmensch | August 3, 2009 3:12 PM
This Vincent Fleury is clearly a loon.
I'll have to link to my paper laying out my theory of how, when God was designing us, his first drafts were modelled in balloon animals and the navel is just an artifact of where the balloons were tied off.
Posted by: Lynna | August 3, 2009 3:16 PM
Lovely image, PZ. But now I'm imaging cephalopods with their tops on... and the fashion choices of cephalopods are... Water Bras from Victoria's Secret. Bras with Gel-Curve slime stuff inserted for uplift power.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 3, 2009 3:20 PM
Nerd'@6:
A MESSAGE TO TEH WORLD FROM INSIDE PHARYNGULA
I have seen numerous times over the last few years an instance when PZ Myers, world-famous for being an Icon of Free Thinking on the Internet, is belittled for the "horrible, shameful"* comments of his commenters. And I have always been proud to have been on both the giving and receiving end of the childish ridicule of an arbitrary outside opinion which routinely happens in any online forum, not just the best one ever, here.
The message to teh world is GET OVER YOURSELF. There is only one reason you would take seriously the random (even moderated!) comment of some pseudonymous comment on a blog: you are taking yourself too seriously. There is only one reason you would not take seriously the random (even unmoderated!) comment of anyone anywhere ever: you are taking yourself too seriously.
Yes, that's right. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you take yourself too seriously!
In point of fact this hornswaddle about the 'formation' (meaning the structure, not the development, though obviously the formation of structure occurs through development) of the skull rotating around two points to affect the decrease in jaw size needed to accommodate the increase in brain size during the evolution of humans is fascinating, and could even lead (someday) to insights in evolutionary biology which will unify the fields of evo-devo and molecular genetics.
That doesn't mean that this paper and the illustration involved in the above example isn't a load of useless crap. But it does mean that Fleury doesn't have to be a kook.
I don't think it's entirely incidental that there seems to be a lot of translation back and forth to French going on, which never ever helps when trying to bridge the communication gap between scientific discourse and the more subtle if less profound vernacular of internet snark.
Posted by: Epikt | August 3, 2009 3:23 PM
Psh. No government scientist refers to him/herself as a "civil servant." The correct term is "servile savant."
Posted by: Michael Eybye | August 3, 2009 3:29 PM
The way I'm reading that mail it actually seems like he's also asking you to withdraw your apologies. Now, I know that's probably not what he meant, but if some people can take some things literally, why can't the rest of us?
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 3, 2009 3:43 PM
...and they dance naked on my desk.
You just have to use your imagination when you read my posts.
That's it. I'm declaring damages and mental anguish.
I will drop my pending lawsuit if you make every effort to mitigate your transgressions with a sufficient monetary award for damages. I am in need of a new Harley Davidson Softail® Deluxe for late summer/early fall touring. I will be waiting.
PS I would like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention that the flat-screen hasn't arrived yet. This kind of blatant disregard for my more than reasonable demands is highly unprofessional and is surely an abuse of your trusted position.
Kindest regards,
Posted by: Barklikeadog | August 3, 2009 3:51 PM
Forgive me if I'm wrong but it appears that Fleury is suggesting that a tornado in a junkyard is making a 747.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 3, 2009 3:57 PM
Scientist, civil servant, academic and crackpot are not mutually exclusive. I've known several people in academia and in government bureaucracies who were crackpots.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 3, 2009 4:00 PM
You have to give Fleury the benefit of the doubt. English is not his native tongue, just like biology isn't his native field of study.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | August 3, 2009 4:26 PM
Thirtyfiveup @40:
You totally missed it, didn't you? Of course, PZ called him a crackpot the first time around! See, it is right there.
cranks, trivially pedantic, kooks, psychedelic, nonsensical, superficiality, inch deep, waterboarded, fictitious... You gotta give it to Fleury - it must have taken some mad physics skillz to rearrange all those letters in his mind...
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | August 3, 2009 4:27 PM
Are you saying that we should understand his paper exactly opposite to what it appears?
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 3, 2009 4:36 PM
What, pray do tell, is the exact opposite of 'umitigated heap of shit'? Is it 'mitigated heap of shit'? In which case, I would have to disagree because the evidence does not support that conclusion.
Posted by: JackC
|
August 3, 2009 4:39 PM
Lynna @55 (and some?)
Yeah - I read frog as being rather nice as well - and I also re-read PZs post as being rather ... well... complimentary at some stages anyway.
I thnk the guy just wants to vent.
I am horribly embarrassed that I did not recognise that he wants the withdrawal of PZ's apologies as well. Wow. How could I have missed that?
JC
Posted by: vf | August 3, 2009 4:57 PM
"Say you're sorry or I'll send Celine Dion to serenade you at hourly intervals every night."
this is unethical
Posted by: Anne Reynolds | August 3, 2009 4:57 PM
So I spent about 4 hours on this, reading through Fleury's paper, PZ's review, and a bit of the debate here on this blog when PZ first posted his review.
I'd like to say I am neither a physicist, nor an embryologist. I am in fact a radiologist, so I have a bit of familiarity with the biology side, and also with physics (because of the radiological physics aspect), but I am by no means qualified to judge the full merits of Fleury's paper, either from an embryological or physics perspective.
Having said that, I feel sorry for Fleury, I think he's being poorly treated. PZ seems to have been frustrated by two things - the inordinately long intro to embryology in the article (which I guess could be explained by its intended audience of physicists), and PZ's inability to understand physics.
In the comment thread, Fleury has repeatedly clarified some of the points raised by PZ. There are indeed vortices in the embryo (he shows movies which clearly show them). Perhaps some of this is a language problem, Fleury being French and all. But some of the simplistic criticisms directed by PZ are just not valid - for example implying that Fleury didn't understand where the "lateral plates" came from, when Fleury explained that it wasn't the lateral plates as such but the limb buds (or bumps) on them, which he takes as an indication of flow or hydrodynamic pressure.
Finally, I'd like to say that it's sort of silly to pillory a scientist's peer reviewed paper on a non-peer-reviewed forum like this, which like most internet forums, has its fair share of cranks and trolls. The fact is, that no one would pay much attention to PZ's musings on some science paper except for the fact that PZ has made a name for himself as a militant atheist.
Now I am a militant atheist myself, and heartily approve of PZ's efforts in that direction. But I would find it laughable to conclude that this makes PZ some sort of authority on all matters science, specially when it's fairly obvious that PZ doesn't really have a clue about the physics in Fleury's paper. That doesn't make Fleury right and PZ wrong. If PZ simply said something like "interesting theory, now can you devise an experiment with some predicted measurements or results we could expect" that would be fine. Not all physicists would oblige of course, there is a huge field of theoretical physics where physicists don't give a damn about experimentation. It's a different culture.
But I think Fleury may well have obliged, since from his postings it appears that he is indeed an experimentalist, and does make measurements and predictions.
But PZ got into all sorts of other negativity which has turned this discussion into a joke.
So I have to say, all that I have learned from this episode is that comments on published science by marginally qualified people like PZ (which he admits to himself right off the bat) are pretty much nonsense. It's one thing to have PZ criticize the latest snake oil sold by the creationists. We can all laugh at that. But here PZ has gone in above his head and sounds a bit foolish to me. In any case, this matter will not be solved in the court of public opinion, popular though this blog is.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 3, 2009 5:05 PM
Oh PZ how could you? You went and called him a crackpot, and all he did to you was demand that you censor the free speach on your blog and apologise for calling him a crackpot before you actually called him a crackpot. It not as though he is a physicist who makes sweeping generalisations about a field completely unrelated to his own and dismisses out of hand the work of the actual luminaries of that field . . . err, ok so he sorta is but that in no way warrents the label crackpot.
Even if you didn't call him that at the time that is no defence. He might be into that whole non-linear time thing that he saw on startrek that one time. Yeah, he's got you now. You can't categorically prove that the point in the space time continuum when you actually called him a crackpot is not contigous with the point in the contiuum when he wrote his letter of complaint due to a quantum temporal fold . . or something. Yeah, thats some good science right there! You can't argue with that, I don't care if you are the Emissary!
*runs off, trailing the buckles of his straight jacket while being closely pursued by men in white coats*
Posted by: vf | August 3, 2009 5:19 PM
"...Apparently, she reads Pharyngula (hi, Suzan!), where, to her delight, she discovered Vincent Fleury, a fellow crackpot."
PZ Myers
Pharyngula, June 26th
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 3, 2009 5:26 PM
. . . the Hell?
Some people should stick to their navel-gazing.
Posted by: MadScientist | August 3, 2009 5:28 PM
I need to revise my embryology textbook:
1. sperm meets egg
2. sperm and egg form bellybutton
3. bellybutton mutates into other life forms, including many which don't have a bellybutton
Hey! That's so much easier to understand than the crap in my 20 year old textbook! I don't know why biologists insist on this complicated stuff.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 5:31 PM
vf # 85
yup... so you found a post where PZ does call you a crackpot, but not the post you referenced in your email.
So you've managed to confirm what PZ has already since clarified: He thinks you are a crackpot.
Feel better?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 5:38 PM
I wonder if Vincent will review the case of Pivar, who also tried to sue PZ for calling him a crackpot?
IIRC, everyone but the lawyer Pivar wasted money on laughed that one right out of court.
I'm not against Vincent wasting his money, but I rather think the results might be cause him more damage than he thinks.
Do you really WANT that kind of publicity, Vincent?
Do you really have money to waste making yourself look more of a fool than you already have??
Are you ready to have everyone point and laugh even louder?
*sigh*
Nobody is asking you to retract your nonsense, even though that's what it is.
suggest you just lie quietly until such time as the laughter dies down a bit.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 5:39 PM
Anne Reynolds #83
I've read your post several times now defending Mr. Fleury. What I'm not finding is any evidence you are providing that supports Fleury's claims... even his "revised" claims. All you are doing is attempting to highlight his clarifications. They are still pure, unsupported conjecture with no evidence to back them up.
You make a pretty bold statement about PZ's frustration with "not being able to understand Physics". You base this on what exactly? Your radiology background? Please clarify.
I see nothing of real substance in your post... so I'll simply leave you with this:
your concern is noted.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 3, 2009 5:40 PM
Pretty much.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 5:41 PM
I'd like to say I am neither a physicist, nor an embryologist.
then, go read Gilbert's "Developmental Biology", and then make a comment that isn't so ignorant.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 5:44 PM
marginally qualified people like PZ
marginally qualified at physics?
maybe.
he does, however, have a PhD in developmental biology.
Even then, I've only have undergrad level physics courses and can myself easily see where Vincent misuses physics models to try and make his case.
It's not that the force vector models are technically inaccurate, it's that they're entirely irrelevant.
IOW, Vincent is in the "not even wrong" camp at this point.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 5:47 PM
Thorough coverage, as usual, Blake!
nice job!
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 3, 2009 5:48 PM
Anne Reynolds, how can you defend a man who thinks being serenaded by Celine Dione is unethical (see comment #82, posted at the same time you posted)? He's obviously not right in the head on some level.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 3, 2009 5:56 PM
Anne Reynolds:
Everything you said makes perfect sense. As long as we forget that PZ is an expert on evolutionary biology, and that evolutionary biology is the subject (if not the field) of the paper being reviewed/critiqued/unduly ridiculed.
Refer to my earlier comment. It is not silly to pillory a scientist's peer reviewed paper on a non-peer-reviewed forum like this. What is silly is taking it seriously. Perhaps it is possible that Fleury's paper is not a shameful pile of dreck in the original French. Perhaps. Whether it is or isn't won't be decided on Pharyngula.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 3, 2009 6:00 PM
This is like the Underpants Gnomes version of the Scientific Method:
1. Form hypothesis.
2. Don't bother with evidence or testing -- skip directly to asserting your conclusions as truth.
3. Threaten to sue anyone who does not recognize your genius.
4. ???
5. Collect Nobel Prize.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 3, 2009 6:16 PM
So my fellow countryman Mr Fleury thinks that French people are Cartesian. Of course, it's grossly exaggerated. Try to use Descartes' "Discourse on Method" as your methodological guide, and you won't go very far. But this remark happens to be true when it comes to Vincent Fleury himself ! When Descartes wasn't busy trying to generalize about how to "discover the truth", he developed a few scientific (for the time) hypotheses. One of them was known as the "vortex hypothesis": that the planets in our solar system were carried and moved by great vortices in the ether. It was a deliberate alternative to Newtonian physics.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 6:33 PM
tmaxPA, I have been a skeptic for 20+ years. In that time, Skeptical Inquirer has published a few articles on cranks/crackpots who were scientists, but went off the deep end. Fleury is a classic case that could fit into any of the descriptions. So I see the characterization as accurate. His shutting up about his treatment here, and ceasing to defend himself at a weeks old thread would be a good place for him to start his rehabilitation process.
Posted by: Brain of Gustav | August 3, 2009 6:35 PM
PZ@61
"You can't see the nekkid ladies on the Howard Stern radio show, either. But yeah, the cephalopods are in the studio, and they do take their tops off when I ask them to, and they dance naked on my desk. You just have to use your imagination when you read my posts."
I will.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 3, 2009 6:36 PM
No...I don't think he does. He shows movies that clearly show cell movements, some of them curvilinear, but that's it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 6:40 PM
Peter Irons' comment about the Pivar case should give Vincent food for thought:
please note words like "humiliating" and "back-down" before you begin thinking you even remotely have some kind of legal issue to press.
This, just to show most of us here have nothing personal against you as a person, even if we think your ideas nutty.
As forethought, if you take this as a somehow being a threat, then you really are insane, and should be seeking treatment.
Posted by: SC "You're One Short Click Away from My Blog" OM | August 3, 2009 7:00 PM
So stop fucking talking. Sheesh.
***
Please visit my blog. :)
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Carlie | August 3, 2009 7:06 PM
I hate to change the topic, but I've been getting a little bored in my daily readings lately. Any new blogs around I can check out? :)
Posted by: SC "Click Here to Read My Blog" OM | August 3, 2009 7:15 PM
Funny you should ask, Carlie!
Perhaps you'll find this new one of interest:
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Always happy to help!
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 7:26 PM
nope, still not getting it.
what, exactly, are you getting at there, SC?
I can kinda ferret out something about a new blog, maybe, but it's just terribly unclear.
can you clarify?
;)
Posted by: Kendo | August 3, 2009 7:27 PM
Posted by: Bosch's Poodle | August 3, 2009 11:14 AM
You're right, that's ridiculous. We all know the Pope doesn't give lap dances; he receives them.Posted by: Carlie | August 3, 2009 7:33 PM
SC, some of those words in your post are in a strange blue color. What does that mean?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 7:40 PM
Maybe if she said Dutch Nudes, it would get more attention. ;)Posted by: Olowkow | August 3, 2009 8:00 PM
>
More like a 747 making a tornado in a junkyard.
Posted by: SC, OM (Click Here) | August 3, 2009 8:14 PM
Ichthyic and Carlie, I apologize. It's my fault for having been overly subtle. I'm talking about MY BLOG, Salty Current, which can be found here:
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Read the fatwa!
fatwa #333957
The blue writing in my posts must be clicked on regularly.
As Sharmoota al-Blog wrote in 641: It is necessary to purify oneself at least once daily by clicking on any blue text in the posts or name fields of SC. It is also required that you add Salty Current to your feeds and favorites. Blue text in the posts or name fields of other commenters is not haram, but clicking on it is left to the discretion of the individual. End quote.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 3, 2009 8:18 PM
OT for SC, OM
If you've got Anonymous posting turned on just for me you can turn it off. For some reason, possibly virus related, I cannot post at your blog.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 3, 2009 8:19 PM
What a strange coincidence--I was just listening to an old Louis Armstrong record with Earl "Fatwa" Hines on piano.
Posted by: spudvol | August 3, 2009 8:26 PM
PZ
You had better hide your Canadian birth certificate, this sounds like a job for Orly Taitz!
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 8:30 PM
Sven:
biddaBoomp
*GROAN*
Posted by: SC, OM | August 3, 2009 8:34 PM
Thanks for letting me know, 'Tis. I've changed it back.
I'm upset that you can't comment. :( Hope you'll still visit.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 8:42 PM
PARTY AT S.C.'s Place!!! Woohooo!! EVERYBODY'S INVITED
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 8:51 PM
Dang, I got to work tomorrow, otherwise ROAD TRIP.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | August 3, 2009 9:10 PM
#78 Kausik Datta
That is what I was saying. The PZ prize was because Fleury discovered the hidden message in that juicy word salad.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 3, 2009 9:12 PM
I intend to continue to visit, SC. And if I get my computer fixed, I hope to be able to comment.
Posted by: Carlie | August 3, 2009 9:22 PM
SC - if it's in a feed, do you still get the clickety count? I was under the impression that not.
Posted by: atomjack | August 3, 2009 9:57 PM
tmaxPA:
PZ is right to tackle this claim- a physicist makes a claim that something that has no evidence in biological science is an explanation for development. Vortices. OK, what makes them, and what makes them last long enough to cause the effects he cites? I am certainly glad my mother didn't have little swirling eddies in her womb...notwithstanding that I have a younger brother we used to call Eddie when we were younger. Bottom line- don't go making up cross-science shit, because those in the know will (hopefully) bust your chops.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 3, 2009 10:09 PM
No, you're right and good point - you have to click on the post title in the feed for that, so if you don't generally do that, please don't add me to your feeds.
:)
PS to 'Tis: Sorry to hear about your computer, btw. Hope you can get it fixed soon.
***
Please visit my blog:
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Hyperon | August 3, 2009 10:58 PM
Enough of this shameless self-promotion, already. Given the ads and the conspicuous request for donations, it just comes off as utterly pathetic. Especially on a blog that's supposed to be sticking up for the poor.
Posted by: Monado | August 4, 2009 1:32 AM
"Increase the N--increase the N!"
It had to be said.
We need more experiments.
Posted by: vf | August 4, 2009 3:07 AM
picture of the vortices,, with fluorescent cell tracking, and PIV velocimetry, can be found at my webpage:
http://www.msc.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~vincent/englishEnresume3.htm
movies of the vortices can be found at
www.gastrulation.org movies 15.1 and movie 15.3
my paper and the webpage contains as many references to articles tackling the interesting scientific problem raised by these vortices as you may want.
Everything else is derisory.
Thank you, Mrs Reynolds: you see, you are a radiologist, and have seen very clearly these vortices. I am a physicist, and have seen very clearly these vortices. Biologists often do not see them. It is a scholastic handicap.
My lawyer will tell me if it is worth suing Mr Myers, I will follow his advice.
Posted by: embertine | August 4, 2009 3:43 AM
Monsieur Fleury, I hope you have a lot of money set aside for lawyers fees if you plan to sue anyone who thinks your paper is ridiculous. A very quick search of the internet shows a host of biologists (not all of them from the US) who can easily see problems with the models you use as the basis for your theories. I have yet to find one who agrees with you.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 4, 2009 4:31 AM
Ah, I knew it was only a matter of time before Hyperon or one of the other humorless, smarmy little jerks would chime in.
It's of course largely a joke,* in a context in which I'm among people I like and respect. This does not include you, asshole troll. Please ignore my blog.
I'm not exactly rich myself, dipshit.
***
But really, I'm dead serious. Please visit my blog:
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: SEF | August 4, 2009 5:28 AM
Are the dead intrinsically more serious than the living? Does this explain the zombie enthusiasm for brainz?
Posted by: Holydust | August 4, 2009 5:28 AM
SC:
I actually lol'd.
Posted by: vf | August 4, 2009 5:33 AM
@embertine you do not understand, finding a paper ridiculous is allowed, it is an opinion, stating that vortices do not exist, when they do, and then using this to infer that I am a crackpot a kook, etc. is not allowed.
I am a civil servant, and if my lawyers do find matter to prosecute Mr Myers, the fees will be paid by the french government. It is not myself vs Myers, it is the state. But sure they may consider it useless and not necessary to sue. I will expect their advice without a priori, being not a lawyer myself.
I have the intuitive feeling that Mr Myers, by not paying the slightest attention to all the evidence which was provided to him, has done something wrong.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
August 4, 2009 5:48 AM
And therein lies no small part of the problem. Even if the vortices do exist, it doesn't necessarily support the conclusions that they cause and underlie development (as opposed to being fairly trivial products of the molecular and cellular processes of development). I believe that this apparent over-interpretation has been one of the consistent criticisms of the paper.
You don't want to address the lack of synthesis with genetic and molecular ontogeny, and you certainly don't address the very real errors in his description of the biology in the paper. (It seems you will admit no problems at all, not even the most trivial errors.)
Your arrogance does not make your observational skills superior.
It is very odd that generations of Developmental Biologists (and Biophysicists) have failed to describe the critical role of these obvious vortices, despite the millions of man-hours spent observing developmental processes. On the other hand, it may just be possible that they have observed similar behaviour and yet, interpreted it differently. You seem not to have considered this possibility. You are not the first person to apply cell-tracking to embryology.
For a public critique of public-domain science? If you think that attempting to silence critics using legal threats is the proper way to conduct popular scientific discourse, then you are doing nothing to help your own cause. You make it seem as though have no defense to offer, other than shut up.
Of course, all of this could have gone away a long time ago, had you not chosen to make an issue of it. Do you not have better things to do?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
August 4, 2009 6:23 AM
For those of you who lack imaginations, however, I provide pictures to enjoy while reading my comments. Enjoy.
Posted by: SEF | August 4, 2009 6:37 AM
Vincent Fleury,
Yes, there are swirly things which happen within cells, between cells and outside cells. However, what you have apparently failed to do is show that your particular swirly things are a significant driver of events rather than an already well-documented side-effect of the real drivers of events.
It's as if you got excited about cars going round a roundabout and heading off in different directions and concluded that the roundabout was a magical driving force in its own right instead of noticing that each of the cars had a driver (and passengers) making the important decisions over where to go, with the roundabout merely being a (temporary and even arbitrary) traffic-enabling solution for what was going to happen anyway.
Posted by: DoxieVee
|
August 4, 2009 7:12 AM
Can't quite understand why Fleury's seeking legal advice. I mean, unless you were British, PZ, in which case you'd be facing a dreadful libel suit.
I don't think giving a truthful review, then following it up with a little light ribbing, is enough to warrant The Full Extent Of The Law coming down on the back of a Minnesotan biologist.
Posted by: Eidolon | August 4, 2009 7:20 AM
It would seem that VF is making a common error when apparent patterns are seen in nature. The example that came to mind was the appearance of spirals in flowers and seed heads. They are not spirals at all, just the result closest packing of individual seeds or flowers.
As SEF @134 pointed out, the pattern is the result, not the cause.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 4, 2009 7:24 AM
SC @ 128,
So, "chiming in" constitutes being a "humorless smarmy little jerk" ?
In other words, disagreeing with you equals being a jerk.Right.
I kept my mouth shut on your blogwhoring, I really dont care, it's PZ's place after all, but can't you just for once try and leave the personal insults out of it?
Posted by: Carlie | August 4, 2009 7:26 AM
Actually, Eidolon, they are spirals, and very neat Fibonacci spirals they are, too. But it still has nothing to do with the weirdo embryonic swirly vortices he claims exist.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 4, 2009 7:35 AM
No, you twit. Hyperon is a humorless smarmy little jerk and a troll quite aside from his remarks to me. Do a search on his comments here.
Like I care what you have to say about it. And like there's no personal emotional motive for you to comment on my actions.
Posted by: Aquaria | August 4, 2009 7:38 AM
By Fleury's "logic," it's the nausea from chemotherapy that cures your cancer.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 4, 2009 7:47 AM
SC,
I think your recent comments to me(cant remember the thread)showed who has the personal involvement here,and it's not me.We talked about perceived sexism, and it ended up with you arguing with everything from me liking truthy to just silly ad homs , like some weird "everything I always wanted to throw at you" thing.
Look, I really dont care ,but I wish just for once you could be fair to people and not character-murder them.
The creationists do that.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 4, 2009 7:49 AM
No, you twit. Hyperon is a humorless smarmy little jerk and a troll quite aside from his remarks to me. Do a search on his comments here.
OK, I just did. I think I was blending him in with one or two others. I disagreed with him on the Condell thread (and found him dodgy and many of his statements jerky), but did not call him a name. In fact, I ignored him and others who I thought were arguing with strawmen. His comments to me here do lead me to consider him a humorless, smarmy little jerk. YMMV.
Can't you find a better use of your time than concerning yourself with my every statement?
Posted by: eidolon | August 4, 2009 7:55 AM
Carlie:
You're right - same as the spirals in the nautilus. My point is that they do not grow in spirals, the spiral pattern is a result of the packing of seeds/flowers of increasing size.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 4, 2009 7:59 AM
No, they explicitly expressed my exasperation at your involving yourself in my interactions with others and metacommenting on my actions. Which you continue to do.
Baloney. I mentioned that as an aside in I think my first response to you. Bill Dauphin characterized the course of events quite well on that thread. We didn't talk about "perceived sexism" - that was your ignorant mischaracterization of what was being said.
Fuck you. I got sick of your shit and told you so. If you really think Hyperon was expressing some sort of substantive disagreement and not simply attacking me, you need to read his post again. You're just looking for an in to comment on me because you're sore.
If you really don't care, then please commence ignoring me.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 4, 2009 8:10 AM
@126: I am also a physicist. The trouble with your claims is that you're claiming a physical causation for which there's no evidence.
Look, we know that cells move around during embryonic development. They have to! So if you track the cells, you can construct a vector field describing their motions. And unless that field is irrotational, you will always find something in it that looks swirly.
The problem is that you are claiming the cells are somehow being moved around by a vortex- a vortex in what? A vortex formed and maintained by what? - when all you can actually say is that the motion of the cells has non-zero vorticity.
You might as well argue that the wind is caused by the trees waving their branches.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 4, 2009 8:14 AM
Vincent said some fairly disparaging things about us in his interview with Suzan Mazur:
Vincent, how many people, some of whom use their real names, did you mean to say were crazy? You're not some hapless scientist after all. Your hands are already dirty.Posted by: Rorschach | August 4, 2009 8:17 AM
Will do !
Posted by: Mick | August 4, 2009 9:02 AM
I am not, in any way, qualified to comment on Dr Fleury's paper. I haven't read it, and doubt I would understand it if I tried. I shall leave that to smarter, more educated, folks.
That said, threatening to sue a blogger and fellow scientist because he gave your paper a bad review and (gasp!) maybe even called you a name or two? You are, sir, a crackpot of the highest order.
Posted by: Sili
|
August 4, 2009 9:18 AM
Hmmm - embarrassing that I'd forgotten this, but didn't Descartes think that vortices were keeping the planets in the their orbits (before Newton)?
Is that what Fleury means by "Cartesian"?
Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | August 4, 2009 9:48 AM
@145
You sir, win. I had no idea that the exact error Fleury is making could be describe so precisely. It is as elementary as confusing cause and effect.
For shame, Fleury. A physicist should know better.
Posted by: vf | August 4, 2009 10:00 AM
>>I am also a physicist. The trouble with your claims is that you're claiming a physical causation for which there's no evidence.
No, you read the paper wrongly, if you did.
>>Look, we know that cells move around during embryonic development. They have to! So if you track the cells, you can construct a vector field describing their motions. And unless that field is irrotational, you will always find something in it that looks swirly.
>>You certainly did not watch the vortices. There is a hyperbolic point (saddle point Vx=Vy=0) this point is the presumptive navel.
>>The problem is that you are claiming the cells are somehow being moved around by a vortex- a vortex in what?
>>All explained in the paper. Not a vortex in anything, the cells make the vortex stuff.
A vortex formed and maintained by what?
>>In the paper. (cell traction forces)
The question of cause and effect is an issue, only when you agree on what is the "effect" you are discussing.
Mr Myers does not even know that there are vortices in embryos. His statements are defamatory.
From a physcist's point of view, the embryos are obtained by the upscaling of the initial static symmetry breaking (saddle point), by the flow.
They are the "cross product" if you will of the initial symmetry breaking, by the constitutive equation (Stokes flow). This is to say, they can be obtained by application of the principle of Curie, onto Newton's law.
Posted by: Multicellular | August 4, 2009 10:16 AM
>>In the paper. (cell traction forces)
So, how does apoptosis figure into these "cell traction forces"?
Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 4, 2009 10:18 AM
SEF @19:
Bit of useless but interesting trivia: the theme tune to "Some Mothers" is actually based on the Morse Code equivalent of the title, so if you substitute "Bloggers" you would get a different tune!
(I'll get me coat)
Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 4, 2009 10:23 AM
(Here it is in Morse. If you know the tune you can see how the metre fits the morse perfectly.)
... --- -- . S O M E
-- --- - M O T
.... . .-. ... H E R S
-.. --- D O
etc.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 4, 2009 10:26 AM
@151: I say, of course there are vortices, you tell me I did not watch the vortices. Alors, a quoi sert de continuer de discuter? Tu ne m'entends pas. Et si tu ne veux pas que je te tutoye, c'est peu-etre la peine de donner au Prof. Myers sa titre, hein?
Alons regarder les arbres qui dansent dans le vent, et disons que ses formes se derivent en appliquant la principe de Curie...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 4, 2009 11:44 AM
No indications of crackpottery here!
Can engineers see the vortices?
Chiropracters?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 4, 2009 11:50 AM
vf, your constant trying to justify your paper is borderline crackpottery. You need to stop. Let the paper sink or swim as is, or write a better paper and get it published in a much more appropriate journal than your last attempt. I speak as a fellow scientist and PhD of 30+ years. You are making all scientists look bad.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 4, 2009 12:18 PM
What utter nonsense!
Wind is, of course, caused by trees sneezing.
Posted by: vf | August 4, 2009 12:26 PM
@155
>>Alons regarder les arbres qui dansent dans le vent, et disons que ses formes se derivent en appliquant la principe de Curie
cela peut très bien être le cas.
Dans le cas des embryons de tétrapodes, la forme initiale est sphérique (ou un disque pour le poulet). Un mouvement d'ensemble, assez rapide, a lieu, à la fin de quoi il a acquis une forme d'animal reconnaissable. Or une analyse simple du problème montre qu'on obtient la forme finale à partir d'une brisure de symétrie statique, prise comme condition initiale d'un écoulement lent de type Stokes.
Rien de plus simple.
Si vous avez vu qu'il y avait des tourbillons, et en êtes d'accord, pourquoi ne aps simplement en informer PZ Myers, afin qu'il arrête de se ridiculiser.
(sans parler de sa sénilité : entre deux posts il a même oublié qu'il m'avait traité de crackpot, je n'ose pas imaginer ce qu'il reste de ses cours de physique. Le pauvre type.)
@157. Thank you for your opinion, if you go onto internet you might get a flavour of what people think of Mr Myers, from the same facts.
At least I have managed to split the wild bunch into several pools :
the ones who agree there are vortices, but think that it has nothing to do with physics
the ones who think there are no vortices (that pool includes PZ Myers)
the ones who think that there are vortices, but not the number I say
etc.
Hilarious.
I set aside Mrs Reynolds who understood so well what is going on in here
the ones who
Posted by: Carlie | August 4, 2009 12:27 PM
My point is that they do not grow in spirals, the spiral pattern is a result of the packing of seeds/flowers of increasing size.
I'll have to do some looking into that. I have always thought that it was because the growth pattern of leaves (in any plant with leaves of alternate arrangement) is also in a Fibonacci spiral, and of course the pattern in a flowerhead is just a very compressed stem, and the sizes increase simply because the age increases as one spirals outward.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
August 4, 2009 12:35 PM
Please explain to me how claiming to know more about a field than those who have studied and work in that field is not classic crackpottery?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 4, 2009 12:41 PM
This was all a game to you the whole time, wasn't it?Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 4, 2009 12:44 PM
vf, I will now call you a confirmed crackpot. You are making scientists look bad. Look at the history of crackpots and cranks, and there is a one to one correspondence between your behavior and theirs. Compare that to real scientist who only defend their papers in the peer reviewed literature.
Time to just let the paper sink or swim. Stop defending it here. If you have to constantly explain the paper, it was a bad paper. The types of papers I rejected when I was reviewing them. I don't even need to read it to figure that out. You can always try again, but do so in a more appropriate journal. And use a real biologist as a coauthor.
Posted by: Hyperon | August 4, 2009 12:50 PM
@SC:
Generally around the time when we reach puberty, we cease to find "jokes" funny after they're repeated a few times over a short period. Very likely you know this and were using your unfunny "joke" to obfuscate your true intentions. Yeah, me neither. I still don't crawl around the Intertubes pleading for money. If I did, and if I were a self-proclaimed hardcore lefty with a blog whose putative goal is to fight the fight of the poor...well, I really don't know how I would sleep at night.I have no problem with beggars, so I wouldn't have said anything if it weren't for this disgusting hypocrisy. You profess to align yourself with the poor, while asking readers to send money specifically to you (as opposed to any of the thousands of far worthier causes).
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
August 4, 2009 1:28 PM
If you're going to insult someone, do it in their native language. Don't be a weasel.
I would also suggest that you read the original post again, because nowhere does it state you're a crackpot. It does heavily criticise your paper, and on two fronts; the content of the paper and the form of it. By far the most prominent criticism is that your paper lacks synthesis with biological studies of ontogeny. (I fear that it is your memory which has failed in this matter, or rather, that you have failed to distinguish between the views of some commenters and those of PZ.)
The reason he has called you crackpot here is because of your unreasonable demands, for an apology and that he admit that he has missed the obvious validity of your paper.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 4, 2009 1:43 PM
vf, if you aren't a crackpot, then cease posting here and start working on a follow-up paper, with a biochemist, so you can add some real experimental detail to your original work. Not only would that shut up your critics, that is what a true scientist would be doing.
Posted by: vf | August 4, 2009 3:04 PM
@162
of course.
Posted by: Oldcola
|
August 4, 2009 3:38 PM
So Dr Fleury,
L2/R2 are a joke? Your model is a joke? The papers at Organogenesis and EPJ AP are the extention of a joke? Just a game over scientific journals?
Are you a joke?
Posted by: Vincent Fleury | August 4, 2009 3:47 PM
@Bernard
you should recapitulate the threads, Mr Myers did call me a crackpot on june 26th; I do not mean senility as an insult just a fact, and by the way, PZ Myers got a specific mail about this. I still expect the apologies about crackpot. I may also demand that he shaves his moustache;
about this :
>you have failed to distinguish between the views of some commenters and those of PZ
there is no point to do so. Viewed from a reasonable point of view, Mr Myers manipulates the commenters on his forums. His technique consists in putting a few phrases, which serve as bait for the hounds, which finish the job. He knows perfectly well that it works this way, he even admitted up there that internet is a tar baby, in which his opponents will get crazy, the more they play with it. Therefore, what he does consists in using this consciously. Editing e-mails or rights of reply, in order to prepare the slide for the comments is his technique.
However, I had a great pleasure in seeing progressively appearing such comments as: "I say, of course there are vortices, you tell me I did not watch the vortices."
stated by his defenders.
So cool. So eventually, Mr Myers is reduced to ashes by his own club, and burried altogether.
And that's it.
You ow me an apology, Mr Myers, more than ever.
Posted by: Hyperon | August 4, 2009 4:02 PM
"I may also demand that he shaves his moustache". What? You're taking the piss, aren't you?
What a very strange sense of humour.
Posted by: Grendels Dad
|
August 4, 2009 4:27 PM
Any chance this turns out to be a PoMo attempt at a Sokal hoax?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 4, 2009 4:40 PM
No. As a PhD* in Treelogy (specialty in tree aspirations) I can say, categorically and without fear of contradiction, that wind is caused by trees farting.
*Phoney Doctor. This degree is issued by my mother because I asked her** nicely in a real, paper letter, which qualifies as a dissertation.
**Actually I haven't asked her, but I will some day, if I remember it.***
***They**** say that memory is the second thing to go when you get old, and I don't remember what the first thing is.
****"They" being "them."
Posted by: Oldcola
|
August 4, 2009 4:44 PM
Dr Fleury,
Not just the two transient vortices of the epiblast, four of them and at a moment when they can influence the lateral mesodermal plate; you seem to be very concerned about the spatio-temporal aspect of the phenomenon, so try to be as much specific as possible (you don't present these elements in your paper; if you think you do please provide the references as page/column/paragraph).let me remind you:
And of course, in your spare time, answers to http://tinyurl.com/vfalc1 and http://tinyurl.com/vfalc2
And http://tinyurl.com/vfwtf
Now, let me try to guess, you will not answer these questions ;-)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 4, 2009 4:48 PM
Fleury, you are owed nothing. Behave like a professional and go away. This will die out without your participation. Your professional ethics are questionable.
Posted by: vf | August 4, 2009 4:53 PM
Oh, now you even wish it to die out.
Let me go away, indeed.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 4, 2009 5:06 PM
Oh, now you even wish it to die out.
Let me go away, indeed.
Irony, sweet delicious irony.
Viewed from a reasonable point of view, Mr Myers manipulates the commenters on his forums.
Viewed from such a PoV, you have manipulated all comments coming after yours.
I worry for your sanity. I really do.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 4, 2009 5:08 PM
So cool. So eventually, Mr Myers is reduced to ashes by his own club, and burried altogether.
um, now that's a great example of wishful thinking on your part.
again, if you really believe that's the case, you're beyond being a crank.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 4, 2009 5:18 PM
Thank you, Mrs Reynolds: you see, you are a radiologist, and have seen very clearly these vortices.
actually, she never said that she saw the vortices as a radiologist.
You appear to have reading comprehension problems, in addition to several other problems.
I have to suggest that you wish your pet theory to be true so badly it is indeed coloring all critique and commentary about it you see.
As a scientist, you are supposed to be doing everything you can to DISPROVE your own pet theory. Not shore it up by projecting your ego on to it.
If you were a grad student, you would be flunked out of any real university if you approached your thesis in this fashion, and you know it.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 4, 2009 6:23 PM
Hmm... Just to avoid reader confusion, I think post #150 arrived late because of the links. Everything after it is bumped up by 1, including vf's comment #160, my question #163, and vf's astounding answer #168.
Posted by: Eidolon
|
August 4, 2009 9:07 PM
Carlie@161:
You've gone and done it - now I'm into some botany, a subject I had no love for as an undergrad.
In any case - The spiral pattern results from one of two causes. First, there is spiral phyllotaxis, in which successive organs are created along a spiral. In this case, each part of a spiral is formed in succession.
The second is the ontogenetic spiral in which the contiguous elements of the spiral are not formed in succession. In the sunflower head, the members of any one spiral did not develop sequentially. They still show the Fibonacci pattern. Why this should be is still an open question. If there is a real botanist in the house, any thoughts?
'Nuf of that - I'm going back to my physics and stuff that don't die over the weekend.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 4, 2009 10:28 PM
VF @ 170,
And 183 is a Poe, right? Right?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
August 5, 2009 5:40 AM
I searched the original thread, and cannot find this anywhere.
The fact is that the original post was critical of the paper and that alone, and made no comment about your personality. The crackpot comment above is clearly in reference to your response since that original post.
No. PZ may have some unquestioning supporters here, but they do not constitute the majority. (And I don't know who they are.) If there is a tendency towards agreement with his views and opinions, then it is because like-minded people are attracted to this kind of forum. There is no manipulation, since PZ broadly avoids censorship.
Anyway, you cannot claim on the one hand that PZ manipulates a mob, whilst simultaneously claiming that,
Thus demonstrating that there is no blind obeisance to PZ.
Actually, I don't agree that you've significantly changed anyone's opinion on the matter; the comments on the original thread were somewhat mixed.
Also, I'd note that most people are argeeing - as did PZ in the original post - that there is cell movement, rather than that there are specifically four vortices with a saddle point around the presumtive navel, as per your specific claim.
Did PZ edit or change your correspondance (when he published it here) to alter the meaning or context? That is a pretty serious charge, and one that commenters here would take very seriously.
Posted by: Oldcola
|
August 5, 2009 10:17 AM
For those that may be interested with the problem of vortices, and their number, a short note describing the problem with Fleury's model, which claim four vortices, each one specifying at it's center one of the limb fiels, ergo tetrapods.
In his web page Fleury qualify as "wrong" the observations of developmental biologists from 1929 to 2009, but avoids displaying how an alternative model fit experimental data and compete with his own to describe them. As most of the initial discussion on the subject is in french and the original post was much visited the last two days (dloale.wordpress.com 320 hits), I prepared for you a short note with Chuai & Weijer's model in comparison to Fleury's, including microscope images of the phenomenon.
Posted by: slpage | August 5, 2009 10:24 AM
Radiologist guy:
"But some of the simplistic criticisms directed by PZ are just not valid - for example implying that Fleury didn't understand where the "lateral plates" came from, when Fleury explained that it wasn't the lateral plates as such but the limb buds (or bumps) on them, which he takes as an indication of flow or hydrodynamic pressure."
Tell us - radiologists have to go to medical school, right?
Well, when I attended medical school (as a grad student in the Anatomy department), we learned about embryology. And we learned that limbs buds are essentially the result of differential cell growth. You can see this with a light microscope.
Did you have to take embryology in medical school?
Most likely. Do you think Fleury's position on limb buds being produced by hydrodynamic pressure or flow has merit? If they are the result of pressure/flow, why only 4 buds and not lateral ridges?
PZ may not be a physicist, but one need not be a physicist to understand physicists do not always have the right answers to everything, especially in subjects well removed from their actual fields of understanding, their arrogance and self-importance notwithstanding.
Posted by: friendthegirl | August 5, 2009 1:50 PM
@emote control
I will definitely start using "timecube." We deal with some genuine timecubists on my blog. It's brilliant.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 5, 2009 7:08 PM
I'm back!
No, and I disagree. There are jokes and stories I've thought funny for years, let alone hours. Of course I wasn't joking about wanting people to visit my new blog. Why would I have to obfuscate that?
That's not what I'm doing, as I'm quite sure everyone who's been reading my posts here for the past year and a half knows.
I'm not.
You're an ignorant fool. I've studied radical publications for many years, and a large number of them historically have contained ads, as well as requests for donations if people are so inclined. There's nothing contradictory about having a left-wing blog or any other sort of publication and requesting donations or featuring advertisements, or with other people being paid for left-wing journalism. If people on the left had to eschew such, the only people who could be radicals would be those wealthy enough to do it as dilettantes and dabblers. It's ridiculous.
You can't see the difference between publicizing my blog (jokingly or not) and begging for money? Any left-wing publication that has ads or requests donations is "really" just begging for money? You're a clueless idiot.
There is no hypocrisy. You're just ignorant and don't know anything about me.
You mean the fucking donation button? To help me continue as a researcher and blogger? On the blog where I link people directly to organizations' donation pages and give publicity to their causes? Is that what you're talking about, idiot?
Posted by: vf | August 6, 2009 3:27 AM
Please, pay no attention to this troll (Oldcola #185). Just read my paper, if you are interested by these questions.
Posted by: SEF | August 6, 2009 4:02 AM
Yo, PZ,
on your best guess, is this the real Vincent Fleury / vf making a fool of himself in comments here or is the IP address of posts showing as somewhere other than France (or wherever it is he's meant to be).
Posted by: Oldcola
|
August 6, 2009 5:11 AM
Dr Fleury just make it possible for me to display his connection's related information, by breaking one of cteappv's rules.
So it will be easy for PZ to compare.
Posted by: vf | August 6, 2009 2:54 PM
for your information about the previous comment, and Mr Oldcola,the link to the triumphal post revealing my identity, IP number, provider account number etc. was disabled by the provider of Mr Oldcola for violation of terms of service
Vincent Fleury
Posted by: Oldcola
|
August 6, 2009 4:23 PM
@ #191
Oops! ;-)
Posted by: vf | August 7, 2009 4:01 AM
I do not know what interest it has worldwide to know my private identification numbers, but it is certainly illegal, and very much revealing about what was truly going on in here. The disclosure of my connexion parameters, which exposes my private life, family bank accounts etc. to hacking was immediately disabled by the provider. This man (Antoine Vekris, "Oldcola") immediately put it back.
Let everybody make an effort to understand what this means, truly.
However, this will now be treated otherwise.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 7, 2009 4:57 AM
You two should just go and shoot it out or something, maybe this forum is not the right place for your personal feud.
Posted by: vf | August 7, 2009 5:19 AM
I kindly informed Mr Myers, that he and his blog was manipulated, by somebody teasing such a personal feud (see the post from which this thread started), this could have been stopped right away, and could have never been.
I am just a regular scientist working on a difficult, novel, and interesting phenomenon, and publishing on it.
Neither Mr Oldcola, nor Mr Myers do.
Your comment just closes the loop.
Posted by: vf | August 7, 2009 10:43 AM
http://cteappv.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/l2r2/#comment-203
Posted by: Oldcola
|
August 8, 2009 8:53 AM
cteappv: new URL, old rule coming back & always the same comments and unanswered question
Posted by: get a free credit report | September 3, 2009 2:53 PM
hm... very interesting post, i like this