3 ms·
Not sure he has any options there. The normal approach would need to be overwhelming to be taken seriously without the protection of some political language. Y
by bnjms 6y ago
Not sure he has any options there. The normal approach would need to be overwhelming to be taken seriously without the protection of some political language. You’ll need to defend your reasoning just for people to hear you out once there are political implications. And that’s on top of the normal work. I can’t interpret this though so I cannot say myself.
- Robotbeat 6y agoI don’t agree. Political, overconfident language is not scientifically appropriate, especially for a paper purporting to overturn the scientific consensus. Sounds like this is language that was in there before peer review but that was removed before publication. Makes sense that part didn’t pass peer review as it’s improper to make such overconfident conclusions and claims in a scientific paper.
- bnjms 6y agoYou've won me over. This type of language belongs in accompanying text not directly in a scientific paper.
- fanimalmanimal 6y agoI’m a layman, but the paper reads more like a series of assertions. Maybe those assertions are self evident for an expert in the field (Id love if someone could reply with follow up information if that’s the case), but it just doesn’t seem to present actual evidence to back up the claims.