Do not enter an arena unless you have trained & are adequately skilled. If I engage w/ legal scholars, they have every right to call out for making confident statements that are clearly wrong. That is not rudeness, it would be me being appropriately put in my place. /1
-
-
Replying to @ProfHayward @mloxton and
Your argument boils down to: MD: My plan suggests that cold fusion works if you do X, Y, & Z Physicist: That's dumb b/c of A, B & C, which are part of established physics MD: So how would you do cold fusion? Physicist: No1 knows how yet MD: So you are rude & unhelpful
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Not even close, My Dude. Here is the argument. Unless a topic is in your direct area of expertise AND you have current research in that area, you should defer to what pops out the top of the peer review process as being the best guess. /2
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
That is NOT how science works. Lot's of useless research gets past peer-review (it has an IR reliability <0.15). Therefore, post-peer review critiques are a basic part of science. Markey ignores establish stats methods, & not U or he or any1 has defended agnst those critiques.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Not how science works? Tell me more about these post-peer review critiques of which you speak. Is that when a science body aggregates and curates published papers, or is it something else? I.e. are you claiming to be performing "post-peer review critique" here?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mloxton @ProfHayward and
Waiting for an answer here
@ProfHayward Do you believe that what you are doing now is "post-peer review critique"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sort of, but only one of us is participating. You & Makary have yet to make any counter-argument to the three major errors that contend was made by Makary, each is supported by a published & logical reasoning & stats theory.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
What do you mean "sort of"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I rec rereading my tweet. It is self-explanatory.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
He’s not arguing in good faith, really at any part of this conversation. He can not defend Makary’s methods, he can not deny those estimates have not been bourne out by actual measurement showing death due to error somewhere between 2-8% even with most generous criteria. I muted.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
TBH, given the contempt he's voiced for me, I'm surprised that he still follows me.
-
-
Because sometimes you add value
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.