View Single Post
Old 02-27-2009, 12:42 AM   #84
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
They aren't red herrings, though I'm not sure people realize what the implications of some of what I posted yet.
They are. Red herrings and straw man arguments. Rather than deal with the data presented, you choose instead to erect arguments you can easily knock down. This is clearly an intellectually dishonest tactic.


Quote:
http://www.au.dk/en/news/210906a

Having problems getting article to come up but it is concerning one of your sources.
It outlines the actions Nyborg's university took on him related to his participation in a different research project, which he was tasked to undertake and monitor.

First, it isn't clear that you understand what the problems the University had (Nyborg found it to be a matter of restricting academic freedom; the university took issue with technical flaws in a controversial research topic he monitored).

Second, you haven't demonstrated that the alleged issues the university took with his position on the Skanderborg project is related to the much later study I cited. Clearly they still had confidence in his academic ability since he was allowed to continue on as faculty. Clearly his later research has merit since it was vetted through the referee process of the prestigious journal Intelligence.

Therefore, for anything you say to have any merit; for any of your criticism to be worth reading, you'll need to evaluate the data of the 2008 research on its own merit. In order to compare and contrast with Nyborg's previous research, you'll need to demonstrate that the same flaws of methodology (assuming any existed to begin with) exist in the 2008 paper.

Otherwise, the comments you posted are intellectually dishonest ad hominem arguments. It appears that you're creating a straw man of the researcher's character since you're incapable of addressing the research.

Quote:
Well first two people I looked up have gotten into serious trouble concerning academic dishonesty.
There is, indeed, dishonesty occurring in this discussion. It isn't, however, related to any of the research I've cited. Demonstrate dishonesty regarding this research, and I'll revise my position. Your straw man and ad hominem arguments regarding Nyborg indicate a fear to deal with the research.

What of the detailed analysis of Stankov I presented? You would rather erect arguments you can easily knock down that look at empirical data?

Quote:
That is in the second source I presented concerning Academic dishonesty.
Sorry. This isn't related to any of the research or data I cited. Your spurious link is dismissed. Please stay on topic.

Quote:
The fact one of the researchers you mentioned was suspended from his job for academic dishonesty in his research isn't relevent? I wasn't born yesterday, that is at least one source that just lost credibility, and that was just the first one I investigated.
Its only relevant to someone afraid to deal with research on its own merit. If you can demonstrate that whatever issues caused Nyborg's suspension are related to his 2008 research and you can show the flaws in his methodology, then you're demonstrating relevance. Instead, you've posted many spurious links which are red herrings, leading others down a path you want them to go, as far from the data I've presented as possible.

Clearly, my analysis and the data I've presented have hit a mark. I'm sorry, but they are legitimate and valid data. Particularly Stankov, who's research is empirical and not partially syllogistic the way Nyborg's is.

Quote:
In reference to that particular source though, I'm showing there is a systematic problem, and showing incidents in multiple states and even countries outlines that there is a problem.
No. You haven't. You've shown that your adept at creating straw man arguments as an ad hominem toward researchers you don't like vis a vis google. You haven't demonstrated any of this "research skilz" you so boldly asserted. You've demonstrated a knack for generating red herrings to keep other participants away from data you don't wish to deal with.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,