₦airaland Forum

pilgrim.1:
Relax now, haba! You and 'us' know they are not the same, although many people make the mistake of making them same.

I am relaxed, trust me.
I just wanted to know if there is something Bawo knows that I dont.

bawomolo:
This is just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt.

Actually, I am taking that with one big bag of salt, three bags of Pepper and 5 bags of Egusi.

Principled science is DIFFERENT from methodologies used in Science. I know because I have taken a course entitled "Ethics and Methods in Science". Boring class but thats besides the point.

bawomolo:
I would say it's the methodology but is the[b] methodology used today the same as the methodology used in 1950?[/b]

Nope .

But I dont see how this answers my question unless if U are telling me that Principled Science = Scientific methods 

Aint principles and methods different in most context?

bawomolo:
If you think you are right, then go ahead regardless of how irregular you may sound.  keep in mind, What's principled science today may not be principled science tomorrow.

I thought I understood what principled science meant until now.

Is principled science a view/theory (in which case it can change) or is it the manner in which science is supposed to be done for it to be interpretable (in which case it shouldnt change)   For instance, its always expected that one includes controls in experiments and that will never change.

Now if I come across an experiment that lacks controls that would enable me interpret the data, that would make me raise eyebrows.

And u are right, those editors arent dummies, and so that makes me raise even something bigger than eyebrows  

pilgrim.1:
Methinks it's rather because no one wants to be made a scapegoat by being ostracised and rejected in the scientific community for 'daring' to be brave.

LOL!!!!
If I had data that say otherwise, I am prepared to go to a less popular journal if the first rate papers wont publish. And I will keep on publishing in those less popular Journal until someone pays attention. Or at least gives me a grant

m_nwankwo:
Thus peer-review works inspite of the limitations.

.

Oh, yeah,,,, I agree!!!! Dont think I would want it any other way.

Yeah, but how did that even happen

The judges practically hyped up Adam to win,,,,,,, came as a shocker to me. Not that I care anyways

m_nwankwo:
I  also have reviewed manuscripts and recommended them for publication based on scientific merit and yet the editor rejects the recommendation because the paper dig holes in what he has established over 30 years of research.

I think that both sides of the coin (which is rejecting a new idea and publishing false claims) are equally dangerous. Either one can set off and maintain the other. Keep on publishing false claims and future scientists will keep on citing those false claims and basing future experiments on those claims. In the end, we would just be building a house on a pack of cards.
I have an example where an observation has been made and fully proven in chicks, same experiments were done in mouse and the results were very inconclusive,,, however, the finding in chick studies have been extrapolated to mouse and ALL the experiments done now in mouse are based on this theory. That has been a huge talking point in the field right now but no-one wants to take out the time and money to actually examine what the hell is going on in mice before moving foward. Everybody is just in a haste to move foward  

davidylan:
Uche are you surprised? What about papers where you repeat the EXACT SAME EXPERIMENT and get totally different results? Papers where figures are glaringly patched together especially western blots?

That is 21st century "science" for you. I think the pressures of grants and publications has pushed integrity aside.

Very true 


LOL @ Western blots I see that alot U can always tell when U look carefully at the intensity and shape of the bands that those things werent run on the same gel

@ Debo and David
 I am glad U guys have cleared that up,,,,,,,, now I can dilly dally a little bit without really diverting the thread.

pilgrim.1:
1.


However, it seems we're all concerned about one thing: the problem of a lack of 'scientific integrity' (if there's anything like that) .

Unfortunately, I am beginning to think that standards are being compromised. I might be wrong but there are some articles that U read and U begin to wonder how in the hell did this get published If as a student, I can pick out some huge issues with some articles, then there is no way the reviewers wouldnt pick up on that  

I just finished reading an article and I could not just believe my eyes!!!! The hypothesis was weak in terms of evidence, the experimental strategy was crappy to say the least, some glaring controls were missing but the conclusions they made,,,, phew!!!! Huge conclusions!!! . I talked to my PI and she laughed and said thats what U get if U are a big shot in a field.   The guy that put out this paper is well - known in that field.

Another event just happened where one Professor was fuming cos a paper got published. He reviewed the paper , rejected it apparently but it still got put out without addressing the issues he raised. Once again, the paper was from a well-known lab.

That really makes one wonder about scientific integrity

debosky:
but I still believe the article is factually correct.

I believe the facts provided in the article too and going by those facts it makes me conclude that we now have a new taxonomic class. Thats my conclusion. Any other claims made on TV or anywhere else is just sensationalization.

debosky:
I think they want to put the possibility out there (i.e for others to investigate and confirm or disprove) without falling prey to the mistake of pigeon holing themselves to one idea or possibility. It is possible, but clearly there isn't sufficient proof to verify the possibility in this article and they would be crucified if they started

I know thats what they were trying to do and thats why I call it bad scientific writing. U dont do that when writing a manuscript. U acknowledge that ur hypothesis might be wrong by providing ALTERNATIVES to ur hypothesis. U dont just state a hypothesis and then say U dont advocate it; then why state it in the first place
We know 80 percent of all hypothesis put foward by scientist(s) turns out to be wrong. U dont need to tell us that; we know that already. What we want to know is why U think ur hypothesis is right. Thats more important and if there is no evidence backing up ur hypothesis, then U should not be stating that as a hypothesis in the first place.

However, these guys are already established in their fields so they know all this. Which even makes me think that this might not be a case of bad scientific writing but a case of deceit,,,,,, which is even worse than bad scientific writing.

debosky:
The differences are not to 'prove' evolution as you fear but for taxonomic classification.

That to me is the impact of this "Ida" publication. Just purely for classification; you cant make more out of it than that. Unfortunately, the way and manner this article has been hyped  would make this finding remembered more for its failure to provide a missing link than for its description of a new taxonomic class; which is what the paper was all about in the first place.

@ Debosky

I understand ur point,,,,, and honestly I really found that curious. U hardly see statements like that in research publications where in one sentence U tell us U think something is possible and then in the next line U tell us then that u are not advocating that    To me thats bad scientific writing.
However, it tells me one thing tho' ,,,,, this article was written not solely from a scientific perspective but there was also a huge commercial interest too. The link that David provided kinda suggests that too.

I had wanted to bring this up,,, but I decided it might be too petty or a little bit technical,,,, if the Scientific community believes that Ida is really what it is hyped up to be this pubication would have landed as the cover page of Science or Nature. PLoS is a very respectable journal with a respectable impact factor but if I had " evidence for a missing link" on ma hands , I would not be going to PLoS.


I wonder what huxley thinks about all this I would like to see his views

It is just very annoying when the media keeps on drumming this missing link into one's ears, the paper never even made such claim.
 
I wonder if this is all just a ploy to make someone rich    The fossil cost some bloke over $1 million dollars and somehow that money has to be recouped. So what other way to recoup that but to sensationalize the finding.

A TV documentary is coming out soon and a book is in the works,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,someone is getting paid  What next,  probably a video game titled find the missing link 

It is so sad that the hype has taken off the significance of this research which is basically the characterization of an extinct lemur-like specie. Even Lucy didnt get such hype, are we getting desperate to prove evolution right?

This kinda stuff makes R Kelly look like Mother Theresa

As long as they shave their arm pits, I could care less.

spikedcylinder:
Its a random kidnapping, just like the others. His offense is that he might have money.

ROTFLMAO

Abeg make una no kill me this morning,

Who gives a heck if the thread doesn't make sense ;hell, half of the threads on NL can be classified as bunkum; but as far as there something to laff about  

OP needs help  

NL in the morning is like a shot of caffeine.  

dapsycool:
I dey ya back kampe, I beg no change loyalty o
I need to know who'd bin doing my job, so I need the person's identification info.
I no withdraw again, i'm all yours body and soul dont be surprised if you see me by ur door soon
pls leave na2day o, na my padi

  Sista!!!!! Hey , how are u doing?

  Well, most of us are still here,  U know how NL is,  no permanent friend nor foe,  Lots of spats ,  U gonna love it!!!! lol

  @  Osisi
   
  Stop this rumor now before U scare away the little birdie I have my eyes set on 

@ JJYOU

Ur sarcasm did not go unoticed Believe me , I was not trying to be disrespectful.

Anyways, the case U brought up, I dunno if U are talking about the case of Kylie and Remi, they had twins , black and blonde. But in that case , the twin zygosity test showed that both babies came from the dad. The explanation for that was not far fetched, the parents were biracial.

Yeah, it does happen but most cases kinda go unnoticed except under some circumstances where certain features makes it imperative to ask questions.

One case that comes to my mind is this white lady that had two lovers at the same time, a white guy for financial upkeep and a black dude for sexual upkeep.
Well, God catch am, the lady got prego and delivered a pair of fraternal twins. Ur guess is as good as mine how it was found that the two eggs were fertilised by different sperm donors

amebo no1.:
na so loff dey start, from "you are one of the lively ones" to " can i get your email addy"

continue my eyes are quite open

LOL!!!!!!

Like the one involving TampaRay and FL Gator LOL!!!!!!


Yes, na, we don change the style of "wooing"

E si na ikuta utaba aba ime ahia

What do U mean what is wrong with black people Bi-paternal twinning is not exclusive to black people, abeg.

In white women , it is documented that one out of every 400 pair of fraternal twins is bi-paternal.

Heteropaternal superfecundation has been dated in the US as far back as the 18th century. It is rare but not unheard of.

amebo no1.:
so na here uche2nnachuwkwu dey play love for my back abi

Wow!!!! That must be the longest NL ID I have ever come across


Away match dey sweet naaaa

@ y me

No , U are not, U are one of the lively ones. U take it the way U dish it.

nana:
. . . .all these threads that exhibits yeyeness!. . . .
Ifeleke,i like ur name tho'.

U are supposed to be going to a bbq this summer. Ol' girl cheer up ooooooo .

I heard that no uppity girl would be allowed to the bbq

y me:
@Uche2nna
oh thanks dear for proving me right

who are the fine girls that left NL?

pls i wanna know them

Proving U right?

I meant that fine girls do show up in the morning , I mean the ones with no attitude,

5 hrs from now, come back and see girls with attitude all over the place looking for who to devour Its hilarious most of the time, tho.

y me:
is this love is-------------- this love that am feelinggggggggggggggggg

dont get it twisted am just singing

Of course, it is love!!! Whaddya think it is?

_{E be like say na early momo fine girls dey comot for NL}

LOL@ Amebo!!!!!   Nne, wetin naaaaa  


 It is too early to start amebo[i]ing[/i].

Hell, it is too early in the week for one to start professing e-love    Thonia fine sha, so carry go OneNaija!!!


@ STELARTOIS

Wetin be ur own na? 

Leave Thonia and OneNaija alone or I will start professing me e-love to you too