Re: AIS Scientific community
- Subject: Re: [sibrob] AIS Scientific community
- From: "Hensler" h*@povn.com
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 05:41:10 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: <academyhouse@toad.net>
>
> I agree. The AIS scientific community does have a lot of catching up to
> do. However, the article you referenced is one of the few truly
> scientific papers to be published in the AIS Bulletin in recent years.
I really do have to disagree with this. A truly scientific approach should
have involved more than observation and trying a few crosses. Anyone could
prove they *didn't* find something.
>Any time a person puts an observation,
>opinion or statement out in the "scientific community", he or she should
>be ready for questioning. Their conclusion should be based on objective
>observations, considering every factor that may have come into play. If
>a person is going to assert that something is fact, (s)he should be
>ready to prove it, beyond reasonable doubt.
My main objections are due to the fact that every factor has not been
considered. The Scientific focus has been entirely on what the F1s look like
and if they'll produce seed regardless of whether the cvs used are
compatible.
Chromosome counts, behavior, chromatography, and visually obvious hybrid
markers in some of the F2s and F3s have been considered irrelevant.
> Bottom line, a good scientist should be his (or her) own worst critic.
Agreed. If these plants hadn't passed all of the tests I'd thrown at them
they wouldn't have gone out in the first place.
In your opinion (Everyone please feel free to jump in here), when
considering such a claim should Science focus on one or two aspects of a
limited population or take into consideration all of the collected data on
the widest possible group of individuals?
Christy
To post to Sibrob: sibrob@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
