>>Also, doesn't ICR remember the scientific method? After reading their
article, I felt like reminding them that you generally make your
conclusions after you have looked at the data, not before. ICR is
basically saying "we're going to do the GENE project, and we're going to
find out that evolution is wrong!" Nice little inversion of the
scientific method :-)>>
I'm not sure it is really an inversion, IF the researchers are prepared
to toss out their expected answers when those answers don't match up. It
is proper, I think, given ICR's past history, to think they will not do
this, but one can always hope!
I performed a series of experiments in graduate school looking to refine
data on the resilience coefficient done by Raman in -- I think -- 1919.
There was a result I was looking for (and quite confident of finding).
As the work progressed, I found an effect that was wholly unexpected.
Raman's original data, reported in the Physical Review, showed a trace of
this effect, but with cruder instruments, the data was smoothed out.
It was a minor thing to find, but for awhile I could think I was the only
human on the face of the globe to know about this "new thing."
Perhaps ICR will also find a "new thing." On that basis alone, ethical
considerations aside, I would not "mess" with the work.
To unsubscribe, send a message to email@example.com with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 30 10:36:38 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 10:36:38 EDT