Could someone give me an appropriate criticism for this?

[CharonY 2395]

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.

[Phi for All 5884]

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?

[iNow 5899]

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. 

[Abhirao456 0]

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?

[swansont 7465]

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.

[studiot 2146]

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 1 hour ago by studiot

[Abhirao456 0]

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

[joigus 370]

@Abhirao456 You may be interested in this:

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

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

[CharonY 2395]

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.

[Abhirao456 0]

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;)