Why molecular taxonomy is pure bullshit....

Discussion in 'Taxonomy' started by Roth, Jun 10, 2011.

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

  1. Jun 11, 2011 #21

    Braem

    Braem

    Braem

    Guest

    YES ... if one writes about plants ... anywhere, one should at least bother to have the spelling wright .... and diferentiata between species and hybdrids and even between man-made hybrids and natural hybrids ... If one does not have the correct name "ready" on can ask, and if one is not sure what one has, one should not write about it.

    This is alos one of the things that makes me a bit nervous about an open forum like this. If the forum is to be considered serious, there should be some editing and I am willing to answer all questions about names, taxonomy, etc. etc.
     
  2. Jun 11, 2011 #22

    quietaustralian

    quietaustralian

    quietaustralian

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Thái Nguyên, Việt Nam
    You can nominate the researchers for an Ig Nobel Prize but there is always a lot of competition.

    http://improbable.com/ig

    Mick
     
  3. Jun 12, 2011 #23

    chrismende

    chrismende

    chrismende

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,435
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
  4. Jun 12, 2011 #24

    chrismende

    chrismende

    chrismende

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,435
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
  5. Jun 12, 2011 #25

    Heather

    Heather

    Heather

    Administrator Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,476
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA. Outside w/ Southeast Exposure
    Hrm…sorry Guido - we try to leave that up to the posters - edit yourselves, no one else will be doing it here...
     
  6. Jun 12, 2011 #26

    SlipperFan

    SlipperFan

    SlipperFan

    Addicted

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,283
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Actually, I've been pretty impressed with the posts here. Yes, there are some grammar and spelling errors, but those can be excused for a number of reasons. The vast majority of posts are coherent and minus the shortcuts one sees in texting. I think it's great!
     
  7. Jun 12, 2011 #27

    Braem

    Braem

    Braem

    Guest

    THat is Ok ... typos are fine ... we all have them ... but at least the names of the plants should be correct
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 12, 2011
  8. Jun 13, 2011 #28

    NYEric

    NYEric

    NYEric

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    47,347
    Likes Received:
    133
    Location:
    New York City Apartment
    Refering only to STF, is this a scientific endeavor or an information sharing site?
     
  9. Jun 13, 2011 #29

    emydura

    emydura

    emydura

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    6,812
    Likes Received:
    101
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    To me it is the latter with scientific endeavour just one aspect of the information we share.

    David
     
  10. Jun 13, 2011 #30

    NYEric

    NYEric

    NYEric

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    47,347
    Likes Received:
    133
    Location:
    New York City Apartment
    I agree, therefore I question the thought of having to spell plant names exactly here.
     
  11. Jun 13, 2011 #31

    Heather

    Heather

    Heather

    Administrator Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,476
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA. Outside w/ Southeast Exposure
    I personally think it is also an educational site and we owe it to folks new to the hobby to be careful and knowledgeable about the correct way to spell things. I had people correct me when I was wrong when I first started and it helped me learn a great deal.
     
  12. Jun 13, 2011 #32

    ohio-guy

    ohio-guy

    ohio-guy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Getting back to the title of this thread....I don't think one should completely invalidate an area of study, (ie molecular taxonomy) just because a particular paper is very bad or has incorrect information. Just because something is published, even if in a reputable Journal, does not mean it has been well reasoned or correctly evaluated. The writers may not know what they are doing, or may not truly understand the methods they are using. Just because an under-educated person manages to get a paper published, which is subsequently shown to be wrong, does not invalidate the entire branch of study itself.

    One well known case is of a paper that appeared over a decade ago in a major British Medical Journal that tried to show a link between Autism and Vaccines, based on a very limited number of test subjects ( I think it was less than 20 or 30 subjects, if I remember correctly.) The paper was soon shown to be full of errors in the design of the tests, in reasoning, and incorrect in the conclusions it drew. (Even so, it was not retracted until just recently I think, after it was finally shown the the investigator had falsified much of his data. Retractions can take ages sometimes.)
    And yet, who hasn't at least heard of the concerns of the general public that vaccines may still be somehow related to Autism. And in the ensuing years, we have see a rise in the communicable diseases that the vaccines are supposed to protect against, sometimes resulting in serious illness or even death.
    All this due to a bad paper that was published years ago, and whose claims have never been able to be replicated in another well designed study, whose methods were shown to be shoddy and the data of which was at least in part falsified.
    There are many well designed subsequent studies, with published results, involving thousands of subjects, that show no relationship between vaccines and Autism. The methods or research can be used well or poorly, but it does not make the methodology itself the problem.
     
  13. Jun 13, 2011 #33

    Braem

    Braem

    Braem

    Guest

    Yes ... but some people take offence and immediately start writing sarcastic messages when corrected
     
  14. Jun 13, 2011 #34

    Braem

    Braem

    Braem

    Guest

    No-one invalidates the method because one single paper is nonense. In the mean time, it has been scientifically proven (not only by us alpha-taxonomists, but also by statistics people and mathematicians, that the method is nonsense.
    The methodology is WRONG, and therefore the resulsts CAN not be rational.
     
  15. Jun 13, 2011 #35

    quietaustralian

    quietaustralian

    quietaustralian

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Thái Nguyên, Việt Nam
    I agree! I’m more than happy to be corrected on plant names, taxonomy etc.

    Regards, Mick
     
  16. Jun 13, 2011 #36

    TyroneGenade

    TyroneGenade

    TyroneGenade

    mad scientist

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,231
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Johnson City, TN
    Ig Nobel Prizes are for work which actually makes sense and the results are useful, just not main stream.

    The article in question is plain BS (even before the method was invalidated). It should have been obvious that something fishy was going on when the plants grouped so unexpectedly. Instead, the authors then cherry-picked morphological characters to back up their DNA tree. This couldn't a better example of pseudoscience.

    I can't image how in a rational world this article is still up there.
     
  17. Jun 13, 2011 #37

    NYEric

    NYEric

    NYEric

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    47,347
    Likes Received:
    133
    Location:
    New York City Apartment
    I agree and hope in the future more (and better) studies are done which use research on the molecular level to confirm taxonomic research and help distinguish or trace evolutionary similarities and/or distinctions between species.
     

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page

Group Builder
arrow_white