30 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

I am actually familiar with this, does this mean it's impossible to find a mistake with the paper?

The issue is if you make things up, there is no reference point to assess whether something is correct. At best one can check for internal consistency. However, if the made-up concept is not well described either (especially if deliberately so), then even that can be challenging or impossible.

36 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

I am actually familiar with this, does this mean it's impossible to find a mistake with the paper?

If you're making up terminology in a paper, the whole paper is a mistake. You can't claim "spin conjugate dynamics" is a real thing just because it's in a paper, so you also can't claim there are no mistakes in the paper just because the things it mentions  can't be found elsewhere. 

"Not even wrong" refers to being completely off-base in your conclusions because you've misunderstood the criteria presented so badly. Like trying to define the physical behavior of an American football without taking it's shape into consideration, and instead use menial temperature, co-joined acceleration parameters, and prevailing chemical perspicacity as key factors. If I told you a football bounced the way it did because of those things, would you claim you couldn't find any mistakes with my explanation?

48 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

I am actually familiar with this, does this mean it's impossible to find a mistake with the paper?

I will make the following claim:

Vollawarping is accurate within the 4th tensor of yesterstonic harmony grids and can only be challerated with nanosupliance under a force of missiletonaria.

Now, please tell us all whether that claim is correct of if you can find any mistakes. 

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

I will make the following claim:

Vollawarping is accurate within the 4th tensor of yesterstonic harmony grids and can only be challerated with nanosupliance under a force of missiletonaria.

Now, please tell us all whether that claim is correct of if you can find any mistakes. 

Oh crap😂😂

 

Also one last question, I saw this guy has cited one or two Legitimate papers, does this increase the credibility of the author in any way? Say for example, just before the start of section 4. *Biological dynamics* , he cites a very very credible paper, does this mean that he read that and is right?

36 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

Oh crap😂😂

 

Also one last question, I saw this guy has cited one or two Legitimate papers, does this increase the credibility of the author in any way? Say for example, just before the start of section 4. *Biological dynamics* , he cites a very very credible paper, does this mean that he read that and is right?

Not really. Look at how many times he cites himself. That can be a sign of bootstrapping nonsense. When you're building up a house of cards it doesn't matter if you have one or two solid pieces in the foundation.

2 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

I am actually familiar with this, does this mean it's impossible to find a mistake with the paper?

It means that it's gibberish.

Be done with it.

Edited February 24, 20214 yr by studiot

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not really. Look at how many times he cites himself. That can be a sign of bootstrapping nonsense. When you're building up a house of cards it doesn't matter if you have one or two solid pieces in the foundation.

True, very true

@Abhirao456 You may be interested in this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

It's very much related to what @iNow's point.

1 hour ago, Abhirao456 said:

Oh crap😂😂

 

Also one last question, I saw this guy has cited one or two Legitimate papers, does this increase the credibility of the author in any way? Say for example, just before the start of section 4. *Biological dynamics* , he cites a very very credible paper, does this mean that he read that and is right?

I think some folks, including many students, are under the assumption that as long someone cites something, it somehow becomes more credible. That of course is not true. Assuming the citation was done correctly, it only points out to a fact or observation made by some other group. It does not mean that it follows the argument that one wants to make. I can, for example, correctly cite a paper that shows similarities of SARS-CoV-2 to existing bat coronaviruses, but if the main thrust of my paper is about how lizardmen have released the virus in order to overthrow their pangolin overlords, it does not actually add credibility.

It is more that if no citations (or mainly self-citations) are given, that one should be even more skeptical.

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think some folks, including many students, are under the assumption that as long someone cites something, it somehow becomes more credible. That of course is not true. Assuming the citation was done correctly, it only points out to a fact or observation made by some other group. It does not mean that it follows the argument that one wants to make. I can, for example, correctly cite a paper that shows similarities of SARS-CoV-2 to existing bat coronaviruses, but if the main thrust of my paper is about how lizardmen have released the virus in order to overthrow their pangolin overlords, it does not actually add credibility.

It is more that if no citations (or mainly self-citations) are given, that one should be even more skeptical.

Facts.... thank you for the response 

 

25 minutes ago, joigus said:

@Abhirao456 You may be interested in this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

It's very much related to what @iNow's point.

Will check;)

 

On 2/24/2021 at 5:44 PM, iNow said:

Vollawarping is accurate within the 4th tensor of yesterstonic harmony grids and can only be challerated with nanosupliance under a force of missiletonaria.

Got it! The chicken!!!

The original machine had a base plate of prefabulated amulite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two main spurving bearings were in a direct line with the panametric fan. The latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzlevanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-deltoid type placed in panendermic semi-boloid slots in the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a nonreversible tremmie pipe to the differential girdlespring on the "up" end of the grammeters.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator

 

 

Thanks for th link to thSokal affair, Joigus.
cery interesting.

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Thanks for th link to thSokal affair, Joigus.
cery interesting.

Yes indeed.

+1 J.

Politics aside, the Sokal affair still gives me food for thought, even all these years down the road. I knew it would interest you. Thanks for appreciating it.

If you overlook the political implications, there's still a lot to be learnt concerning this topic on purely scientific/philosophical grounds.

46 minutes ago, joigus said:

Politics aside, the Sokal affair still gives me food for thought, even all these years down the road. I knew it would interest you. Thanks for appreciating it.

If you overlook the political implications, there's still a lot to be learnt concerning this topic on purely scientific/philosophical grounds.

Last year, on a short psychology course I learned about another american Professor who gathered a group of students to pretend to have certain disorders and be subject to diagnosis by various NY clinics.
The results of this were also quite startling.

On 2/24/2021 at 11:22 PM, swansont said:

Not really. Look at how many times he cites himself. That can be a sign of bootstrapping nonsense. When you're building up a house of cards it doesn't matter if you have one or two solid pieces in the foundation.

Would it be alright if I asked a follow up question this late?

9 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

Would it be alright if I asked a follow up question this late?

Sure

Fans of Vogon poetry (Doug Adams) would enjoy the OP link.   

 

27 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Fans of Vogon poetry (Doug Adams) would enjoy the OP link.   

 

I was always partial to "My favourite Bathtime Gurgles". 

On 12/23/2021 at 7:08 PM, swansont said:

Sure

I actually saw the author had posted something on water on some shit. He got 23 recommendations by people? Does thus increase the credibility of the paper I originally posted in any way?

What sort of people offered these recommendations and what were they recommending?  What was the topic of "water on some shit"?  Not really sure what that means, or how that relates to the OP article.  Any clarification would be gratefully received!

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

What sort of people offered these recommendations and what were they recommending?  What was the topic of "water on some shit"?  Not really sure what that means, or how that relates to the OP article.  Any clarification would be gratefully received!

It's about Quantum Electrodynamics and water and how it forms stuff like coherence domains. The recommendations were by one or two physicists , rest were not. My thinking was that if he can write those stuff which is recommended by physicist then how can this stuff be word salad?

There’s no way to make an assessment without seeing the work and the comments 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

There’s no way to make an assessment without seeing the work and the comments 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333531765_Deep_into_the_Water_Exploring_the_Hydro-Electromagnetic_and_Quantum-Electrodynamic_Properties_of_Interfacial_Water_in_Living_Systems

 

This is the paper I was talking about. It's been cited some times too. My confusion is if someone can cook up a 46 page article which makes sense then how does the other one on I orignay linked not make sense?