3 ms·
This article is claiming the author is a fraud. They should provide proof of that claim, just as the author should provide proof of his claims. I didn’t read th
by halpert 5y ago
This article is claiming the author is a fraud. They should provide proof of that claim, just as the author should provide proof of his claims. I didn’t read the book, but I did read this article and the evidence of fraud is lacking.
- goto11 5y agoYou should look into the concept of "burden of proof". If someone claims a model is based on scientific evidence, then obviously it is the claimant who has to provide this alleged scientific evidence. You can't prove a negative, so it does not make sense to require others to prove this alleged evidence does not exist.
- halpert 5y agoAgain, I haven’t read the book or know anything about the author. All I know is that this article is asserting the author of the book is a fraud. That is a positive statement, and insufficient evidence has been provided from my reading.
- goto11 5y agoHe is a fraud because the alleged scientific evidence does not exist.
- halpert 5y agoSimply being wrong or misinformed isn't fraud in and of itself though. One could be incompetent, for instance.
- CRConrad 5y agoPublishing non-scientific bullshit as science-based is fraud even if the actual contents are based on incompetence. Sure, that makes editors and publishers complicit in the fraud, but in the end: If you let something be published in your name, you get to stand behind it.