That doesn't, no. Ppl keep thinking one experience/example/hoax claims to do that. No.
Yes, that alone doesn't discredit it, does it? Simply a different way of funding.
-
-
Though other hoaxes have been published in physics journals. Should we say all of physics is bullshit? http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414 …
-
Remember, you don't need to refute claim that hoax alone discredits GS coz no-one is making it.
-
I've said this three times now & linked a longer thread about it. Why refute claims not made?
-
We can all agree that anyone arguing GS worthless coz of one hoax would be unreasonable.
-
I'll leave it here. Can't make any progress if you keep refuting claims not made.
-
I just quoted the actual claims made. They clearly think this is a sweeping indictment.
-
No they do not. They think there is a problem, and use the hoax to highlight it. You are indeed arguing a strawman.pic.twitter.com/8nZOLQmJTN
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't know any reputable journals in the humanities that are pay to publish. Maybe physics is different, but this hoax wasn't in physics.
-
Well, other academics disagree with you & they're indexed by top databases.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I admit I initially thought pay to publish was fishy, but apparently it really isn't. It's standard practice for many quality journals.
-
I've learnt this by reading ppl talking about the hoax.Lots of academics came forward to show it
End of conversation
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.