Young Potential Scientists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey as an editor you should be able to assess bad scientific writing. Even if it is not your field of expertise.
--Editors are field specific for going through the 'peer review' process at the OYSI. I will look over the geoscience(and until further notice, cosmology) related articles, while Chase will look over the bio related. I can review a paper for poor logic and reasoning, but given that the articles, published by Chase for instance, are written with an extensive knowledge of biochemistry, it is difficult for someone such as myself to say that something is incorrect if I do not know the biological dynamics and mechanics of the assertions at hand. Maybe you would like to look over some of my geology related articles and tell me where I have went wrong. To my knowledge, the articles I have posted are very accurate(with the exception of the first edition of my CPT article).

do you just post these articles on this website without any editing whatsoever???
--No, as explained above, and on the site, the articles undergo a process of review. Many of the articles which have been published, by myself as well as with Nelson, have been lightly and greatly modified for accuracy and addition.

--Of course we must keep in mind, we are still very small an organization consisting merely of two people. As and if we gain new members with the credentials for being apart of the review process, the review process will become much more rigorous and accurate.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
 
One of your articles quoted extensively from 'Darwin's Black Box,' a notorious creationist propaganda book. 'Peer review' indeed :rolleyes:
 
"One of your articles quoted extensively from 'Darwin's Black Box,' a notorious creationist propaganda book. 'Peer review' indeed"
--I've flipped through Darwin's Black Box before I guess that <i>most</i> people wouldn't call it a book on geology...what do you say?

--You can E-mail Chase Nelson regarding potential errors with his articles content and his review of bio related articles here: aleccummins@sirus.com

--From what I can see, he references and quotes Behe in only one of his articles a single time... I would put into great question whether that automatically renders his articles inaccurate pseudoscience. Those who read scientific literature find that quotations are a regular occurence at times. The only reason your speculation would be wellfounded is if you've done some research on the context of the quote and the accuracy of the assertions within and its attempted application in the paper.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
 
Originally posted by TrueCreation
Maybe you would like to look over some of my geology related articles and tell me where I have went wrong. To my knowledge, the articles I have posted are very accurate(with the exception of the first edition of my CPT article).

no problem, here it goes (warning, don't read it if you can't take any criticism):

let's take Ocean Floor Bathymetry and Plate Cooling during Catastrophic Plate Tectonics

I gather that you are interested in science and want to practice writing science. Excellent idea! Let me point out some major problems then. There seems to be no real structure. Most scientific papers follow the standard structure of title, abstract, introduction, methods and material, results, discussion and conclusion, references.
I gather that you wanted to write a short article and compress the whole thing and that it ok. You also lost almost your entire audience with the first sentence in the abstract:
In this paper it is suggested that the geophysical process of sea-floor spreading and the cooling of the oceanic lithosphere in accordance with catastrophic plate tectonics produces excellent results as a cause of global inundation and works as a plausible alternative to Baumgardners runaway subduction model.
Nobody understands this or its implications. You maintain the same style in the entire paper. If I get papers like this on my desk I just mark sections like this and write beside it that I do not understand it. It is not the job of the reader to make sense of your paper, it is the job of the writer to make sense to the reader. By maintaining this style you ignore most of your audience and annoy the ones that might have the capability to understand it.
A good introduction can relieve many of these problems, but there is none. The reader is thrown in the deep end. But I give a reference you might say! Nobody is going to bother looking up an reference if you cannot raise a sparkle of interest early on.
I found it difficult to distinguish between your results and the results you plucked from references (and are they really results???).
The discussion is terribly difficult to follow.
for instance:

What could possibly be considered a promising research inquiry may be the effects of hydrothermal circulation on heat transfer. The vertical extent of hydrothermal circulation would have to be anamalously high. There is reason to suspect that such further analysis is forthcoming. Regardless, the effects of catastrophic plate tectonics for continental inundation have been shown to be well founded in this paper and the results are tenable.

1. What could possibly be considered a promising research inquiry may be the effects of hydrothermal circulation on heat transfer. ----sorry, but I cannot make sense of this sentence. Multiple interpretations are possible.

2. The vertical extent of hydrothermal circulation would have to be anamalously high. ---- how does this relate to the previous sentence? You do not mention any problem in the previous sentence that indicates this conclusion.


3. There is reason to suspect that such further analysis is forthcoming.---- what does this mean? Are you going to do such analysis? Why do you mention this? what is the reason etc.

4. Regardless, the effects of catastrophic plate tectonics for continental inundation have been shown to be well founded in this paper and the results are tenable. ----regardless of what? Have you really shown these catastrophic effects? It is tenable? shouldn't it be in a scientific article? Is it really worth mentioning it is tenable??

in short this paragraph has no structure whatsoever liek many others.




I hope this gave you some new ideas about scientific writing. I have the feeling you have the wrong idea about it. Namely that it should look impressive and be extremely esoteric in nature.
 
spuriousmonkey:
--Thank you for your interest in critiquing one of my articles. Unfortunately you didn't notice my earlier warning when I said "articles I have posted are very accurate(<i>with the exception of the first edition of my CPT article</i>)."

--The one you scrutinized was that first edition of my CPT article :(

http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/OYSI/Articles/Chris Grose/heattransfer.htm

This is the new version:

http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/OYSI/Articles/Draft/heattransfer2.htm

--It is incomplete so your critique may potentially be very helpful for further corrections and elaboration in the article.

--If you wish to review my newer CPT article, it may be better to post it in the other forum:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21583

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
 
Originally posted by BloodSuckingGerbile
Dude, you're 16 years old and you have so much spare time, enough to support a web site and write articles? I'm 16 too and I love science (physics and math especially) but I'm loaded with exams and I would never have the free time to do that.

--I guess I don't have a problem with getting a couple B's and occasional C's.. I just wonder what my fellow scientists will think when they discover my potential as a regular steven hawking(not to be arrogant of course!). I'm sure I'll have a couple of scientific publications in mainstream journals by the time I graduate anyways.

P.S. Wow your site is awesome. Extremely proffessional. Respect.
--Thanks! Feel free to tell around, I may be pretty good at web and graphics design, but I'm poor at advertisement..

--Also, if you ever find yourself delving into the scientific literature with a passion, give me notice, you may be eligable to be a part of our organization!--you can publish your research and scientific incite there.

Cheers!,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
 
Originally posted by TrueCreation
--I guess I don't have a problem with getting a couple B's and occasional C's.. I just wonder what my fellow scientists will think when they discover my potential as a regular steven hawking(not to be arrogant of course!). I'm sure I'll have a couple of scientific publications in mainstream journals by the time I graduate anyways.


Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

your biggest problem at the moment seems that you think science should be complicated, and what is more detrimental, that scientific writing should be unintelligable.
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
your biggest problem at the moment seems that you think science should be complicated, and what is more detrimental, that scientific writing should be unintelligable.
--I think of science in neither way. Genius is the ability to reduce the complex to the simple while maintaining accuracy. But hard science calls for excrutiating detail which tends to make the scene more complicated. I have no pre-conceived idea that scientific writing must be complicated or difficult to comprehend.

--Maybe this is something I should make very clear in the OYSI Faq's page?

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
 
You have to realize that it's very unlikely anyone here will take a science page run by young-earth creationists seriously.
 
"You have to realize that it's very unlikely anyone here will take a science page run by young-earth creationists seriously."
--Then maybe its a time for a change of heart? Indeed, it is unfortunate that the majority of YEC's have to be arrogant and illinformed, but there is real research to be done--I for one am very interested. As I have explained before, the evcforum.net administrator is pro-evo but has shown himself very even handed, and has even complemented me on my unbiased and likewise even-handedness when discussing a wide variety of topics.

--For those who wish to be prejudicial when considering the contents published in the organization, I am sorry but I think they are missing out in their own misrepresentation of the way we operate.

--Besides, I am agnostic as to the history and evolution of the earth, I don't know that the earth is young--only consider it as an interesting subject of scientific inquiry.

--Edit - Also, the site isn't intended to just be ran by Young Earth Creationists, YEC's are merely all we have in the organization. I would be extatic to incorperate a mainstream mind into our organization and to even give him a position.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
 
Last edited:
????????

Ahh...people.....may I ask, truthfully, what is wrong with Creationists?:( :confused:

Thanks in advance for your input

~superfreak
 
Re: ????????

Originally posted by superfreak
Ahh...people.....may I ask, truthfully, what is wrong with Creationists?:( :confused:

Thanks in advance for your input

~superfreak
--May I ask, truthfully, do you expect to get anywhere through ignorance? Hovind has a problem... I don't have a problem.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
 
hmm..no I think it is possible that you misunderstood my post. I was wondering what people have against Creationists. Personally, I am one. I want to know why people dispise Creationists like that. I like your site and I think it is fine, actually fine is wrong it is really amazing. I have no idea how you find time to keep up the site. Keep doing what you're doing.
Anyway... Sorry if it was simply me who misunderstood what other people said ;)

~Superfreak
 
oh..I see now. When I said 'people' I was not adressing you. I had no intention in implying that you have a problem. I am sorry about that. In the future I will be certain to address people specifically.

Hey did I spell implying wrong...oh well

~superfreak
 
Originally posted by superfreak
hmm..no I think it is possible that you misunderstood my post. I was wondering what people have against Creationists. Personally, I am one. I want to know why people dispise Creationists like that. I like your site and I think it is fine, actually fine is wrong it is really amazing. I have no idea how you find time to keep up the site. Keep doing what you're doing.
Anyway... Sorry if it was simply me who misunderstood what other people said ;)

~Superfreak
--I see, thank you for the correction, I have indeed misunderstood the context of your assertion. Thank you for your complements on the site. Be sure to check out a new piece of software for the OYSI--its called the 'Origin'(currently the site depicts it as named the 'Science.Module', but this will be changed soon). If you download the current version, I have recently embeded a function which alerts you to new updates on the core software(meaning you would have to download the update--or at least it is highly recommended.. such details and more on any updates will be given through the software itself).

--As far as why people despise creationists so much.. I am very confident in thinking that it is the cause of those of individuals who are a bit arrogant and too strict as 'fundamentalists' and allow beliefs to interfere with their mode and method of scientific inquiry. Kent Hovind, Wyatt, and Brown are among the worst as far as I have researched. Personally, 2 or so years ago I was a 'Hovindite', I loved the guy and thought his 'research' and 'seminars' compelling. Though as I delved further and further into the scientific literature myself, the veracity of the picture he painted became terribly altered and it is sad to see others fall prey to his unfounded views and his ilk. I wouldn't call him a liar, only an utterly ridiculous excuse for a Ph.D. It is propaganda, not science he promotes.

--But there are others which enjoy doing scientific research, pointing out problems and aspects requiring serious attention.

--Sorry again for the misunderstanding and thanks again for the complements!

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
 
Originally posted by superfreak
oh..I see now. When I said 'people' I was not adressing you. I had no intention in implying that you have a problem. I am sorry about that. In the future I will be certain to address people specifically.

Hey did I spell implying wrong...oh well

~superfreak
--No problem, I actually interpreted your post as sarcasm, but with your clarification, I have reinterpreted it correctly and in-context.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
 
Re: ????????

Originally posted by superfreak
Ahh...people.....may I ask, truthfully, what is wrong with Creationists?:( :confused:
Its simple. The amount of ignorance that must be required to be a creationist is angering to someone that has spent alot of time learning about the world. A creationist is simply someone who doesn't know much.
"creation science" is an oxi-moron. If a "creation scientist" did too much real research, he would inevitably find out he was believing a lie fairly quickly.
Truth greatly contradicts creation, so "what is wrong with creationists" is they are living in a fantasy land and ignoring the world. This is bad enough but when the brave few try and claim there is any science behind creation it is downright frustrating to anyone who knows anything about science.
 
Well said Dr Lou Natic…

The worst thing is that young potential scientists are having their future careers jeopardized but the religious doctrine being taught by older members of their community.
<i>Originally posted by TrueCreation </i>
--I just wonder what my fellow scientists will think when they discover my potential as a regular steven hawking(not to be arrogant of course!).
Trying to hold down a chuckle. That has got to be one of the most arrogant things I have read for some time. Ha ha ha ha….. :)
 
Trying to hold down a chuckle. That has got to be one of the most arrogant things I have read for some time. Ha ha ha ha…..
--I wasn't being silly when I said that I wasn't trying to be arrogant. Only recognizing that I have a passion for science and a determination. Please find me anyone else who understands advanced geophysical dynamics who has not graduated high school.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top