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
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 -
No-one is suggesting it is. You need a mass of evidence & analysis by very many ppl. Individuals contribute small pieces. Step back.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @KetanJ0 and
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..
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
My blog was about one specific "study", and the conclusions about an entire field that were drawn from it by proponents.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think you're missing the bigger picture. It doesn't stand alone. If it did & all other evidence was that GS publishing was rigorous &sound
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
& based on empirical evidence & reasoned argument, it would disappear. Its part of a larger & growing concern.
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.