Stakeholder #3

     Not done with stakeholders yet. There are a multitude for this specific controversy, even as limited in a field as it is. The third and final stakeholder that will be discussed is John C. Ashton, a professor at the Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology in the University of Otago.

Zijlstra, Ton. "Wooden Stakes" 11/14/2009 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Who is He?
       John C. Ashton could perhaps be described as conventionally attractive, perhaps even what some mothers would coin a silver fox for the graying sides of his hair, compared to the dark top of it. His prominent forehead and deeper set eyes give him an intimidating look, and his serious visage contributes to this, however, he does not exude any feeling of daunting, rather feelings of a trustworthiness compliment him. His clothing portrays ideas of casual professionalism, with a more business look than one of academia.  He tries to speak in relatable ways so those that are not experts in his field may understand his research as well as they can. As far as presence on the internet he is also very barely anywhere, it is hard to discover the true measure of a person when sources are limited besides their multitude of published works.  

What are His Claims?
      The claims Ashton is making within his response to Button et al. include the main one that "null hypothesis testing is no longer performed in the original manner" which is a large issue for any sort of statistical testing; if a null hypothesis is not tested correctly than the entire study is wrong. Another claim he makes is that "the vague 'open' hypotheses of much of neuroscience are barely testable" because of the tendency to just use replicating functions when there are too small of a sample size. Ashton's final claim is a possible endeavor for a solution to the issue of unreliable neuroscience studies for a variety of reasons, his claim is that "[increasing] discipline not only in analysis and experimental design but also in relating experiments to explanatory theory" will solve the issue. Because through this way there will not just be expectation of results or things left to chance.

Proof of Validity
        The validity of Ashton's work comes through mostly with his uses of ethos and logos; we already know and accept he is a well known research and professor that would have the credentials to write about these facts, so what is grabbing within his work is the more seemingly simpler way of expressing facts that he takes; making the work more accessible. He has the necessary citations for his work so that there are claims that back up the claims he expressed.

What Makes Him Special?
        Although Ashton is making a correspondence with the original work, unlike the other responses, he is actually fully supportive of the ideas presented by Button et al. and he lauds them for making a contribution to scientific study. His claims are different from the other stakeholders because he does not make the claims in attack of the original article but more in an append to it.