Bluebird

I was wondering if <a href="http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/cybernews/story/0,1870,109349,00.html" target="_blank">the professor who took out an ad in the NY Times</a> has "scientifically valid" points, or in general, what you guys think of his assertions. I don't know enough about the science behind his claims to form an educated opinion of them myself.

Bluebird

Oolon Colluphid

Sorry Bluebird, I think this would be better off in Science and Skepticism.

Oolon

mac_philo

What are your criteria for something being 'scientifically valid'? If it includes acceptance to a peer-reviewed journal, then no, his whole ad was bunk.

I wonder if he funded it with his own money. It easily cost more than his annual salary.

Bluebird

mac_philo:
uhhh... I put the words in quotes so I wouldn't have to answer that question. I think I meant: are his methods flawed, does he draw poor conclusions, etc.

To clarify, I suppose I am curious to know what people on this board who understand at least some of the science behind this guys research think is wrong with it. Why shouldn't I value his research as legitimate? Why doesn't it lend credence to Intelligent Design, etc. Please enlighten me!

I think I remember reading about a scientist in Australia in the early 80's who repeatedly swallowed vials of bacteria, giving himself ulcers and then curing them with antibiotics. But, since his research contradicted the prevailing theory that ulcers were only a result of stress, the only publisher he could find at the time was something on par with the National Enquirer.

So, although I think that the fact that this professor's research was not accepted into any peer-reviewed journal is a very good indicator that something is wrong with his research, I would like to know WHAT is wrong with it before dismissing it completely.

Thanks!
Bluebird