CharonY 2409 Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 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. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Phi for All 5924 Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 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? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
iNow 5949 Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 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. Link to post Share on other sites
Abhirao456 1 Posted February 24 Author Share Posted February 24 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? Link to post Share on other sites
swansont 7540 Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 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. Link to post Share on other sites
studiot 2204 Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 (edited) 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 by studiot Link to post Share on other sites
Abhirao456 1 Posted February 24 Author Share Posted February 24 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 Link to post Share on other sites
joigus 413 Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 @Abhirao456 You may be interested in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair It's very much related to what @iNow's point. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
CharonY 2409 Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 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. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Abhirao456 1 Posted February 24 Author Share Posted February 24 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;) Link to post Share on other sites
joigus 413 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 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!!! Link to post Share on other sites
swansont 7540 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 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 2 Link to post Share on other sites
MigL 1531 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Thanks for th link to thSokal affair, Joigus. cery interesting. Link to post Share on other sites
studiot 2204 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 10 hours ago, MigL said: Thanks for th link to thSokal affair, Joigus. cery interesting. Yes indeed. +1 J. Link to post Share on other sites
joigus 413 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 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. Link to post Share on other sites
studiot 2204 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 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. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now