What happens when you leave the echo chamber.

[rivka]

Michigan State biologist Richard Lenski has been following an E. Coli population for 20 years, and has produced evidence of a major evolutionary shift in response to environmental conditions.

Some puffed-up "Conservapedia" hacks decided that they were competent to take apart Lenski's conclusions, and wrote to him demanding that he release his raw data for "examination by independent reviewers."

The resulting exchange of letters is pretty entertaining. Here's my favorite bit from the exchange:

It is my impression that you seem to think we have only paper and electronic records of having seen some unusual E. coli. If we made serious errors or misrepresentations, you would surely like to find them in those records. If we did not, then – as some of your acolytes have suggested – you might assert that our records are themselves untrustworthy because, well, because you said so, I guess. But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren’t very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants. In other words, it’s not that we claim to have glimpsed “a unicorn in the garden” – we have a whole population of them living in my lab! [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unicorn_in_the_Garden] And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion]

The Conservapedia talk pages are hilarious. My favorite unintentional bit of comedy: the plaintive heading on the talk archive page "Anyone a biologist?" (Answer: sadly, no.)

(Via Pandagon)

Edited to add: Wait, wait, here's another favorite bit from the talk pages: "I asked Zachary Blount to clarify his statements about whether evolution of Cit+ (citrate-eating) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment. He answered by asking me to go on a wild goose chase by reading the whole paper, which has 8 pages of fine print -- this is called "bibliography bluffing." And when people balk at going on these wild goose chases, they are accused of not wanting to learn."

Man. I can't believe that charlatan Blount expected that anyone wishing to argue about the merits of a scientific paper would read all eight pages of the paper itself. Why would you set up such ludicrously rigorous standards? Only if you have something to hide...

Comments

[nex0s.livejournal.com]

"Anyone a biologist?" (Answer: sadly, no.)

That's the whole issue, right there, ennit?

N.

[eeyorerin]

Oh, this is a thing of beauty and a joy forever to watch.

Reading the whole scientific paper? But it's sooo loooooong! And it has words in it! ...dang, they sound like some of my undergraduates.

[elusis.livejournal.com]

And my graduate students. It is to sigh over.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

Clearly, when I footnote historical arguments to archival sources, I am merely bluffing. (No, really, The National Archives at Kew exists! it's real! it's not a chimera!)

[edschweppe.livejournal.com]

(No, really, The National Archives at Kew exists! it's real! it's not a chimera!)
Hah. Any good Amurrican knows that the National Archives are in Washington. You are obviously a fake.
(Besides, the kerning on your userpic clearly shows signs of photomanipulation.)

[writingortyping.livejournal.com]

"Give us all your raw data so we can evaluate the merits of the 8-page paper that we're too lazy (and quite probably not educated enough) to read."

Um....

[elusis.livejournal.com]

Hey, if they want to re-run all the statistics themselves have at it, as long as we can stand over their shoulders and laugh as they flounder with SPSS.

[ljgeoff.livejournal.com]

And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion.

HA! *wipes away tears* *still making little snorty-laughy sounds*

[rivka.livejournal.com]

It's the helpful link to the Wikipedia page for "allusion" that sent me over the edge. Rarely do you see someone elevate condescension to an actual art form.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Oh, I think it would be fun to send them raw data. Preferably several terabytes of raw data.

[edschweppe.livejournal.com]

Oh, I think it would be fun to send them raw data. Preferably several terabytes of raw data.
Shoulda known you were one of them tera-rists.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Hee. If you wade through the talk pages, you'll see that they don't even really know what they're asking for. People keep asking them what specific raw data they would like to see. They have no clue. They just don't know how science is done.

One bright bulb suggests that Conservapedia ought to be "stewards" of actual samples of the E. coli colonies so that creationists can have access to them. It's clear that he has no idea whatsoever what is involved in maintaining bacterial colonies under safe and uncontaminated lab conditions.

[surelars.livejournal.com]

Heh. If one day these guys decide not to believe in the results of the LHC experiments (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHCExperiments-en.html), I'd be more than happy to send them the entire (multi-petabyte) data-set of "my" LHC Tier-1 centre.

[netpositive.livejournal.com]

the whole paper, which has 8 pages of fine print -- this is called "bibliography bluffing.

To be fair (and I haven't looked at the original paper at all), I read this (poorly written) excuse as "Can you imagine that he wanted me to read the whole paper!!! Which includes 8 pages of paper/article citations in the bibliography, and I can't evaluate the relevance of those without even *more* reading!!! Geez, can't he just put up a 30-second video of his eColi on YouTube?"

Still, asking someone to read the actual paper rather than the abstract, and at least try to understand it before accusing the author of Unscientific Conduct, is just So Gosh-Darn Mean. :P

Plus even if that wasn't a goal of the original experiment, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not a valid observation or result. I believe I've read (there I go again, *reading*) have been a few scientific discoveries that started as accidents or just someone noticing something unusual and following up on it...

[netpositive.livejournal.com]

In the thread of comments on the news article itself, this aside rocks:

The 'theory of evolution' is as much a theory as the 'theory of gravity'.

Oblig.: It's not Gravity, it's Intelligent Falling. Angels are pushing from above.

[tchemgrrl.livejournal.com]

Lenski's responses fill me with wonder and respect. I can't imagine being as nice as that when they're fully admitting to not having read/ understood the paper in the first place, but think that they'll be able to make more sense of the data.

[namedphoenix.livejournal.com]

ZOMG.

There are people out there who think they are smart enough to argue with experts about their original research when they haven't read the research????

I had NO idea there were such idiots in the world. I just thought my high schoolers weren't educated enough and they would eventually learn what they don't know and go about changing that. But no. We are doomed. They stay with the same mentality. "That's to hard. can't you just tell me the answer?" sheesh

Belief Loyalty

[adriang.livejournal.com]

It is to this that people reduce themselves when they feel obligated to BELIEVE as a show of loyalty to their religion. It doesn't matter how much evidence piles up supporting the other side. The other side's viewpoint must be denied and discredited at all costs. That's what keeps creationists at these silly positions. In their eyes, if loyalty to these absurd positions is more difficult, it only makes their loyalty all the more impressive.

Of course they don't want to read the paper. Why in the world would that matter to them?

Belief should never be a show of loyalty. When it is, it just makes us look silly.

Adrian

[erikted.livejournal.com]

Thanks you for the link. That letter is the best thing I've read in weeks!

[kightp.livejournal.com]

*SMACK*-down!!!

I think I'm in love with Richard Lenski.

Mr. Schlafly, on the other hand, appears to have inherited (and I use the word intentionally) his parents' intelligence and argumentive style.

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

*insert long and pointless 'nature versus nurture' argument*

[firecat]

And when people balk at going on these wild goose chases, they are accused of not wanting to learn.

Maybe that's because it's true.

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

Oh wow. Lenski's responses are brilliant. Who judges _Best American Science and Nature Writing of 2008_, and is there a way to call something to their attention?

[bosssio.livejournal.com]

wow, an example of both the highest and the lowest levels of intelligence, in one handy place.

This made me laugh so damned hard. thanks for this!

I think "lest you accuse me of fraud..." may become a new tag line around here.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Oh, this made my night, it really did. *cheers Professor Lenski on*

[electricland.livejournal.com]

I think one of my favourite bits has to be: "But how are we to know if these traits weren’t ‘potentiated’ by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these ‘potentiated genotypes’ originated through blind chance or intelligence."

Apparently you really can do anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_Effect) with those CSI techniques!

[perceval.livejournal.com]

You know Schlafly is now planning to sue Lenski? See here (http://acandidworld.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/lenski-redux-schlafly-will-sue/); found it via Pharyngula.