Re: Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane's Dilemma

Tim Tyler wrote:
Anon. wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
Josh Hayes wrote:
Walter ReMine <science@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Nunney is withholding key evidence. [...]
>>>
I don't think I agree that Nunney is "withholding key evidence" -- in his
paper he says how he constructed his model, and what his results were. You
are free to construct a model according to what he says in the paper, and
if you do, one of two things will happen:

1) You'll get the same results as Nunney did [...]

2) You'll get different results, in which case you can write your OWN paper
and publish it.
>>
That sort of stuff is a big waste of everyone's time.

Then you need a third review paper to decide which
researcher is right.

No, if you get different results, the correct procedure would to then
email the other researcher, and explain that you've got different
results, and start a dialogue about why.

I was following Josh's scenario. You have branched onto
a different tangent.

This will be a lot quicker, and more satisfying when one
of you finds the error.

Quicker than if the source code was published originally?

No, quicker than having the second paper refereed and published. Do
keep up, Bond!

No: forcing others to recreate your program hinders fellow
researchers and the prospective audience alike.

I would disagree for two reasons. Firstly, it's often easier to write
your own code than try to understand someone else's. Everyone has their
own little conventions, and few scientists are trained properly in
writing software, so the documentation is often awful.

Secondly, by having to write your own code, you get to understand the
model much better. I think that's a help, not a hindrance. The
prospective audience doesn't matter: if they need the code to understand
what was done, then the paper should be re-written.

It is far better for everyone concerned if researchers
simply publish their source code in the first place -
preferably with as liberal license as possible.

Then if there's a problem, observers can simply
say: look, a bug on line 96.

Publishing existing programs on the net is usually
inexpensive, so there is not really any good excuse
for not doing it.
There can be legal problems with software licences: if one uses
propriety code, then it may not be possible to release it.

In which case you will be unable to release your code -
and the results of your simulation will most likely be
treated less seriously.

Not so. Or at least I've never come across that sentiment in biology or
statistics (the two academic worlds in which I move).

My own feeling is that it's better if the source code is made available,
but it shouldn't be necessary, and there may well be good reasons why it
can't be released. So I wouldn't want to insist on it.

Bob

--
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland

Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax: +358-9-191 51400
WWW: http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldanes Dilemma
    ... email the other researcher, and explain that you've got different ... slower than if the source code was published originally - ... It seems that your point is that *sometimes* publishing ... Releasing code under liberal licenses ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Extreme Porn - Hiding your Stash ?
    ... c++ etc, if all you need to hide is text its simple, pictures less so. ... The thing to watch with that is leaving your source code lying around. ... the bulk of the code is for an image viewer, and it would not be hard to bulk that out at all so the bits you want to hide are well hidden, if you don't comment it too well frankly it will never be found unless someone has a reasont o throw real resource at you. ... the idea of publishing a different version is interesting, depending how you do it hiding several images within one would be easy.. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Extreme Porn - Hiding your Stash ?
    ... The thing to watch with that is leaving your source code lying around. ... the key secret is the program and method of hiding is unique, ... the idea of publishing a different version is interesting, ... version that adds a hidden image as a water mark, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code
    ... >> implications on attempts to get patent protection. ... no restrictions on distribution of the source code. ... something public if not by publishing it on the front page of the New York ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)
  • Re: Extreme Porn - Hiding your Stash ?
    ... c++ etc, if all you need to hide is text its simple, pictures less so. ... The thing to watch with that is leaving your source code lying around. ... the code is for an image viewer, and it would not be hard to bulk that out ... the idea of publishing a different version is interesting, ...
    (uk.legal)