[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Czerkas' book- Analysis and Criticisms
Cliff Green (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
<I don't think you exactly caught what I was trying to get across. Your
response is confusing to me. I have never met any of the Backstreet boys,
but I hate them personally, and say so as ocassion permits. Saying that
someone is crazy, twice, in what amounts to a book report, not to mention
the other slurs, is personal, whether you want to 'fess up or not.>
And we're talking about not insulting in this post? "Book report" and
"Backstreet Boys" ... please.
<By the way, I am curious about something. How is it that you are
qualified to be the standing authority on what is considered professional
or not? Is there a standard guide to writing scientific papers that
Czerkas et al didn't stand up to?>
Actually, yes. There is. They teach a class in college called Science
Writing where basic scientific formats are employed. Or did you ever
wonder why most scientific papers follow a similar format? That is:
abstract, introduction, discussion, conclusion, references. The premises
must be logical and follow a scientifc, testable basis. In the description
of a taxon, it should be reasonably compared and described so as to limit
the neccessity of having to go to wherever to do it yourself. A theory of
the form and/or its phylogenetics follows. I know before I describe a
fossil I will describe its geology and taphonomy first, then the fossil,
then theories on it without trying to "bunk" other theories. You simply
present data, and implicate this data into hypothesis, test, continue.
There really aren't any other ways to do it.
<I will be more blunt with what I was trying to say. You are correct that
you are intitled to your opinions. Just please turn down the insults. They
are way to loud.>
And as you are entitled to yours. However, this list is none too slow in
keeping check on those who make ad hominem comments, and Mickey's were,
though close, not so "questionable" as to warrant the antipathy offered in
the first sentence of Cliff's post.
Cliff, I didn't see you speak up when posts were offered from Frey and
Holtz calling the writing "horrible" and "unpublishable", the science
"bad" and "poor." Zhang Fucheng decried the practices of Stephen Czerkas,
which his wife Sylvia defended, but I saw nothing from you decrying these
indeed more "personal" posts which were, nonetheless, civil. I do think
Mickey's post went a little low, but it was far from uncivil and against
the rules we list members work under.
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!