Or tell when one is full of shit versus one that is more accurate? This is at the crux of skeptical inquiry I found and what can often lead people astray as much as non-Bayesian thinking. If you overshoot it in one direction, you end up a crazy cynic and conspiracy theorist. Go too far and you end up a sucker who believes anything you hear and whose wallet (and dignity) are more empty than a supermodel's stomach the day of a photo shoot.
This is especially interesting when sites conflict on the ideas presented. Take this example of how much protein you should eat:
http://www.medicinenet.com/how_much_dietary_protein_to_consume/views.htm
vs
http://authoritynutrition.com/is-too-much-protein-bad-for-you/
Now, while I'm no expert in this field, a few things *really* stuck out in the second one that screamed red flag: the name of the site, the use of the bolded words "The Truth" on the "About" page, saying not eating a lot of protein is "unnatural" as if that were bad--made on an unnatural computer. And the biggest of all was saying near the end "Humans evolved as carnivores. We evolved to eat meat!" No. We. Aren't. We are omnivores. The fact that we have both sharp knife like teeth (incisors) AND flat grinding teeth (molars) should be enough evidence for that.
What's more I recall either Potholer54 and C0nc0rdance going into this absent any knowledge by tracing their sources back to the original. That struck me as a good idea too.
So what methods to use when unsure of things? Basically, how to sort the bogons from the precious cluons?
Well, you can look for someone's name on the source material, usually if it's legit, they'll give you some indication of how they know whatever it is they're saying.
You can search around and find the out the reputation of the site, but you kinda have to be careful because sometimes you'll run into someone that gives a bad review or something on a perfectly accurate (within reason) source.
Generally, you can get an idea just from the language of the source. Legitmate sources generally aren't going to have a bunch of emotional appeals/exaggerated claims/whatever.
If at all possible, check more than one source. For your example, I'd check the USDA or the AMA or whatever the American Dietician Association's site says.
As far as these two sites go, my guess is they are both relatively accurate, but they are talking about different things. One is talking about how much protein you need; the other is attempting to debunk a myth about excessive protein sapping calcium and other things.
That would be the Baloney Detection Kit again.
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 09, 2014, 02:02:11 PM
That would be the Baloney Detection Kit again.
And how does that work?
Quote from: T dog on January 09, 2014, 02:02:54 PM
And how does that work?
Like this: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 09, 2014, 02:04:53 PM
Like this: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html
Bookmarked for great justice, thanks Shane! :)
This one is a little easier to follow:
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/ (http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/)
If the paper (and or researcher), works like this asshole and his papers, it is bullshit:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.10752/pdf
it has all the shit in it that the warnings from Sagan included. it is gloriously repugnant.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on January 10, 2014, 02:28:57 AM
If the paper (and or researcher), works like this asshole and his papers, it is bullshit:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.10752/pdf
it has all the shit in it that the warnings from Sagan included. it is gloriously repugnant.
"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Um, yeah, and Tiktaalik dates after land vertebrates formed. Anyone who understands how evolution works wouldn't use this as an argument against it.
Ditto this: ""A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset." Of course, velociraptors DID have feathers, and while it's doubtful they could fly, they could most likely hover over their pray while they ripped them apart with their claws. Half-formed flight, baby! Exactly what the creationists have been wanting us to show.
"We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution." That is ALWAYS found in evolution. What's this guy trying to pull?
And, of course: "Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions." Yep, the World Scientist Conspiracy!
The paper itself doesn't actually demonstrate anything; all it does is try to shoot holes in the existing theory, which is par for the course with creationists.
I did a bit of Googling; creationist websites reference him for other clearly-bogus claims like T. rex was a vegetarian.
I smell a plant.
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 10, 2014, 06:20:54 AM
"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Um, yeah, and Tiktaalik dates after land vertebrates formed. Anyone who understands how evolution works wouldn't use this as an argument against it.
Ditto this: ""A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset." Of course, velociraptors DID have feathers, and while it's doubtful they could fly, they could most likely hover over their pray while they ripped them apart with their claws. Half-formed flight, baby! Exactly what the creationists have been wanting us to show.
"We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution." That is ALWAYS found in evolution. What's this guy trying to pull?
And, of course: "Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions." Yep, the World Scientist Conspiracy!
The paper itself doesn't actually demonstrate anything; all it does is try to shoot holes in the existing theory, which is par for the course with creationists.
I did a bit of Googling; creationist websites reference him for other clearly-bogus claims like T. rex was a vegetarian.
I smell a plant.
Yup and it's stuff like that being the reason why that second paper I presented I suspected is bullshit.
Quote from: dallen68 on January 09, 2014, 01:33:23 PM
As far as these two sites go, my guess is they are both relatively accurate, but they are talking about different things. One is talking about how much protein you need; the other is attempting to debunk a myth about excessive protein sapping calcium and other things.
Both touch on the claim of Kidney issues with eating too much protein (among other things) and both are on the dangers (or lack thereof) of eating too much protein.
Also, thanks for the link to Carl Sagan's too. :)
yeah, it's a perfect example of almost every logical fallacy as shown by Carl Sagan.
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 10, 2014, 06:20:54 AM
"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Um, yeah, and Tiktaalik dates after land vertebrates formed. Anyone who understands how evolution works wouldn't use this as an argument against it.
Not just that, but Archaeopteryx is no longer believed to be a bird, strictu sensu. in addition, new finds have come from China from the late Jurassic.
Quote"A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset." Of course, velociraptors DID have feathers, and while it's doubtful they could fly, they could most likely hover over their pray while they ripped them apart with their claws. Half-formed flight, baby! Exactly what the creationists have been wanting us to show.
it's of course, also a strawman of conventional theory about bird evolution.
Quote
"We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution." That is ALWAYS found in evolution. What's this guy trying to pull?
weasel words! (from Quick,not you).
Quote
And, of course: "Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions." Yep, the World Scientist Conspiracy!
it's also projection and special pleading. Ruben's career is built entirely on his trying to shoot holes in the current theory: he has more on the line than the mainstream do. And he's trying to explain away why his theory isn't being accepted by the mainstream scientific community.
Quote
The paper itself doesn't actually demonstrate anything; all it does is try to shoot holes in the existing theory, which is par for the course with creationists.
oh, you missed the best part, didn't you? go down to page 32 or thereabouts. it gets fucking entertaining.
Quote
I did a bit of Googling; creationist websites reference him for other clearly-bogus claims like T. rex was a vegetarian.
I smell a plant.
I don't know about him being a "plant", but he is a dubious person: he is one of a special group of particularly obnoxious people (largely in America and Italy) called "BANDits" (BAND is short for "birds are not dinosaurs". And this is far from his first paper on the matter: he's been at it since 1993. I did once ask Robert Bakker about him back in 2009, after I did my honors project on dinosaur metabolism back when I was a shophomore, and he said that the guy was "an idiot" and a "creationist". thing is though, there's no evidence that he is: his papers are simply fuel for them.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on January 10, 2014, 08:33:11 PM
oh, you missed the best part, didn't you? go down to page 32 or thereabouts. it gets fucking entertaining.
Um, the paper referenced in the story is only 15 pages long. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.10752/pdf
I noticed in the references Ruben cites himself a lot. I believe that's considered a questionable practice (i.e. raises yellow flags) academically.
Quote from: dallen68 on January 11, 2014, 04:22:42 PM
I noticed in the references Ruben cites himself a lot. I believe that's considered a questionable practice (i.e. raises yellow flags) academically.
Not necessarily, but if that's pretty much ALL you can reference, then yeah, it's a bad sign. But scientists reference their own work a lot. That's how they build on what they've done before.
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 11, 2014, 11:10:27 AM
Um, the paper referenced in the story is only 15 pages long. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.10752/pdf
u
My bad: you either have the shorter version or a different paper (can't open it): if it is the '09 paper, it is still on there though: look for a picture of an ostrich and T-rex skeleton. Then read the caption. You may want to turn off that bogometer of course. It sums up his "hypothesis" well....
@dallen: he's just about the only one there is to cite, since most of the research that agrees with him was done by him.
Also note his peer reviewers aten't named: it isn't necessarily bad, but eith wverything else it just raises more questions.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on January 11, 2014, 08:41:22 PM
@dallen: he's just about the only one there is to cite, since most of the research that agrees with him was done by him.
Also note his peer reviewers aten't named: it isn't necessarily bad, but eith wverything else it just raises more questions.
I was under the impression that the purpose of publishing in a peer reviewed journal, like the Journal of Morphology, was so your paper could be peer reviewed.
Quote from: dallen68 on January 11, 2014, 09:57:25 PM
I was under the impression that the purpose of publishing in a peer reviewed journal, like the Journal of Morphology, was so your paper could be peer reviewed.
that's an incomplete picture: you're correct, but it is incomplete.
actually, it tends to be reviewed before publishing by a small number of experts on the field, before being published in a peer-reviewed journal to the larger audience of experts, for broader peer review; you usually see their names in the acknowledgements. There are all matter of reasons for it: clearing up language, rooting out mistakes, etc.
my professor told all sorts of stories about that: if you do your job properly, the paper should be blood red with corrections, notes, comments, etc.
anyways, let me quote the acknowledgements, in full:
QuoteThis article presents results that were partially
summarized at the symposium ''Functional mor-
phology of the reptilian five chambered heart'' at
the Seventh International Congress of Vertebrate
Morphology in Paris, July 2007, organized by Ken-
neth Kardong, Jeanette Wyneken, and J. Matthias
Starck. The authors also wish to thank the collec-
tions managers and curators of the University of
Kansas Natural History Museum and Biodiversity
Research Center, Division of Ornithology, the
American Museum of Natural History, Department
of Vertebrate Paleontology and the Field Museum,
Department of Geology, Fossil Vertebrates. This
article benefited greatly from the suggestions of
several anonymous reviewers.
the bold part is what I refer to.
what is telling is that a lot of the material mentioned here also comes from other known BANDits: the University of Kansas has one, who indeed runs the museum there.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on January 11, 2014, 08:41:22 PM
My bad: you either have the shorter version or a different paper (can't open it): if it is the '09 paper, it is still on there though: look for a picture of an ostrich and T-rex skeleton. Then read the caption. You may want to turn off that bogometer of course. It sums up his "hypothesis" well....
I see it. It's on page 7 of the PDF file and 1238 of the journal. I don't get how he's saying the ostrich's femoral complex is incorporated into the body wall.
QuoteAlso note his peer reviewers aten't named: it isn't necessarily bad, but eith wverything else it just raises more questions.
The journal selects the reviewers though. Still, it's nice when they publish the results of the peer review. That can be very enlightening.
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 12, 2014, 08:58:39 AM
I see it. It's on page 7 of the PDF file and 1238 of the journal. I don't get how he's saying the ostrich's femoral complex is incorporated into the body wall.
what he's trying to say, using weasel words, in layman's terms is that the femur doesn't move (it does), and claims its to facilitate breathing (the more limited motion is actually due to changes in the hind limb anatomy--especially the loss muscular tails you find in say, T-rex). but that's not the worst part: now look at the T-rex: when he says its from Osborne, 1916, he isn't talking about its year of description (which was 1905): it's way worse than that. And yes, the reconstruction matters a LOT here. it shows that not only is he wrong, he is LYING. he has to be. how could a guy, in 2009, not have reconstructions that are more up to date?
QuoteThe journal selects the reviewers though. Still, it's nice when they publish the results of the peer review. That can be very enlightening.
they can. which is why in this particular case, it raises red flags.
it depends on the journal actually: what you say is in fact the norm. sometimes though, the author will send it himself to a host of people who are experts, and those do the reviewing; once they approve, the journal will accept it and publish it: Ruben clearly did the latter (or he was very well connected), otherwise this paper wouldn't have survived a minute of peer review: these "anonymous" people may well have been non-experts who couldn't discern the facts from the bullshit, or may well have been other BANDits. there is a third possibility, and that is his paper was trashed, but was published anyways: that possibility worries me more than the other two.
OR the paper wasn't dis-proven by the editorial staff of the journal, and it was published pending further collaboration/(opposite of collaboration) for some reason I can't remember what that word is.
Quote from: dallen68 on January 12, 2014, 07:55:36 PM
OR the paper wasn't dis-proven by the editorial staff of the journal, and it was published pending further collaboration/(opposite of collaboration) for some reason I can't remember what that word is.
\
unlikely: this was actually Quick's doctoral or thesis work (I'll look it up), so collaboration was not the goal of Ruben--merely to publish this. besides, whenever he did collaborations, it was with other BANDits or (in the earlier days) fence-sitters.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on January 12, 2014, 07:59:22 PM
\
unlikely: this was actually Quick's doctoral or thesis work (I'll look it up), so collaboration was not the goal of Ruben--merely to publish this. besides, whenever he did collaborations, it was with other BANDits or (in the earlier days) fence-sitters.
Well yeah, but in the context I mean the word, the purpose of publishing "anything" is for collaboration/challenge. Papers that challenge the excepted scientific paradigm are considered superior to those that merely collaborate it (as in, okay, we knew that, who gives a F---). If this paper was to be collaborated, it would make Ruben a hero.