Quote (Jere @ Nov 26 2020 04:12pm)
This has nothing to do with the citation he used to make his claim. Those citations are for some other weird claims he made in the article.
To be clear he conveyed the result of his reference fine, then derived illogical conclusions. I don’t think there should be any doubt that the reference (his reference) I posted in my original critique was apart of his actual review, which frankly invalidates his own review.
I have literally never seen that happen before lol. Posting a reference contradicting your working thesis
I am not smarter than most scientists. In fact the opposite, I listen and respect them greatly. Posting reviews are not primary scientific literature as much as they are commentary. Some commentary is good, some is not. it still has to be labeled as what it is and that is commentary. This guys commentary was deemed inferior by his peers which is why it didn’t go further than word/gmail. That wasn’t my decision but I think it was the right decision give the self contradictions within it
This post was edited by Bazi on Nov 26 2020 04:21pm