>In you response you take for granted what oughta be proved: that the paper would cause "public harm". Yes, this is exactly my point: If for any paper we concl

>In you response you take for granted what oughta be proved: that the paper would cause "public harm". Yes, this is exactly my point: If for any paper we conclude that it would cause "public harm" then the burden of evidence should be increased. The above post does not argue that paper does or does not cause harm but that all criticism of publication is void because later papers would show the original to be incorrect. This is a very strong claim.