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
-
-
This is an odd criticism. I don't like this because its just one example of a problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @KetanJ0 and
Sometimes you need to look at other things ppl have written as well & things other people have written.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
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
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
The hypothesis was upheld. (The hundreds of indistinguishable sincere papers getting passed peer review all the time make this unsurprising)
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likes -
Okay, look. Supporting a hypothesis is hard. A parody account + a hoax in a pay-nothing-to-publish journal are not enough.
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @KetanJ0 @HPluckrose and
I'm not saying the hypothesis is wrong. I am saying it hasn't been supported with solid evidence. That takes work and honest self-assessment
5 replies 0 retweets 9 likes
It takes a lot of people doing a lot of different things. The hoax was a valuable *piece* of evidence. You do the work of looking at others.
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.