didn't say you were, my man, I said the hoax was. I'm cool with systemic and constructive criticism of a field made up of detailed examples
-
-
Sometimes you need to look at other things ppl have written as well & things other people have written.
-
The very important thing is that they didn't do an honest, scientific assessment of the field, but that one hoax was presented as such
-
They say in that quote that their suspicion was justified "on the evidence". If they're referring to other evidence, where is it cited?pic.twitter.com/VapPW5ZELU
-
The hypothesis was upheld. (The hundreds of indistinguishable sincere papers getting passed peer review all the time make this unsurprising)
-
Okay, look. Supporting a hypothesis is hard. A parody account + a hoax in a pay-nothing-to-publish journal are not enough.
-
No-one is suggesting it is. You need a mass of evidence & analysis by very many ppl. Individuals contribute small pieces. Step back.
-
You'll always have to read more widely than 1 study, 1 experiment, 1 argument. This doesn't mean its a problem to do 1 study, 1 experiment..
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.