4 ms·
And yet, I pulled those claims out of the paper, which I linked. Are you suggesting Peter G. Kazansky, a research professor with over two decades of experience
by lvh 7y ago
And yet, I pulled those claims out of the paper, which I linked. Are you suggesting Peter G. Kazansky, a research professor with over two decades of experience in optics, does not count as an academic? Or are you saying the paper doesn't make those claims? Or are you saying the paper also isn't a real academic paper and just marketeer noise?
(I'm not quoting the other authors, who are of course also distinguished scholars :-))
- sombremesa 7y agoThe complaint here appears specifically to be a lamentation that academics are behaving this way, so in attempting to prove their priors you're only strengthening the argument. Your tone seems to be adversarial, so I'm guessing that's not your goal...
- lvh 7y ago"The paper isn't a real academic paper and itself also marketeer noise" is one of the options I've outlined as a debate position. But let's be clear: we started by calling research "phony" over something that would've been trivially clarified by reading a short paper. In order to even get to that point, I have to acknowledge that maybe you get to call research "phony" without seriously implying fraud. I have a hard time taking that as a serious, bona-fide argument.
- airesearcher 7y agoThere are actual papers. Press releases and popularizations are not the same thing. If you look you can find the actual papers.
- tudelo 7y agoWhile his tone seems a bit adversarial, at least he is providing relevant information to the topic instead of a generic rant. I greatly prefer the former.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]