3 ms·

Thank you for agreeing with me about that point. What about my more substantial one - I don't have the time to dig through what appear to be a lot of personal

Thank you for agreeing with me about that point. What about my more substantial one - I don't have the time to dig through what appear to be a lot of personal disagreements about what how to interpret research, so would you please highlight the part which you best believe constitutes scientific misconduct? I mean, sure, repeating a false myth about calculus from the 1800s may be wrong, but if that counts as misconduct then there's a lot of misconduct going on in academia.

gnicholas 3y ago
I didn't actually agree with you — I maintain that it is not "an unfair characterization", since the document was created a decade and a half after the investigation that another commenter referenced. Nice try on claiming the W though! > Or is the issue that the author doesn't understand the topic enough, so think it's too complex for anyone else to understand? I would say the same to you, in your attempt to critique Professor Conrad's piece. As you say, your eyes glazed over so you didn't actually read it. Perhaps you should read it before concluding that it doesn't contain anything of value.
- eesmith 3y ago
  You original wrote "But the document I linked to is from 2023, related specifically to her misrepresentations in the CMF". I said it was unfair because it was from 2022, with edits in 2023. You agreed that it was from 2022, with edits in 2023. > Perhaps you should read it before concluding that it doesn't contain anything of value. Again, Gish Gallop. This has the mark of throwing everything on the wall in hopes that something will stick. Making a mountain out of every molehill means it's hard to see if there are any actual mountains. You say it's evidence that she "repeatedly misquoted research in her papers". My own spot check of literally the first topic I looked into makes me suspect the author's own ability to interpret the research. I listed my analysis - am I wrong? Otherwise, sure, perhaps that one item I looked at is an exception and the rest of the document contains actual mountains. Since you've read the report, what misquoted research stands out to you as the most damning?

gnicholas 3y ago

I didn't actually agree with you — I maintain that it is not "an unfair characterization", since the document was created a decade and a half after the investigation that another commenter referenced. Nice try on claiming the W though! > Or is the issue that the author doesn't understand the topic enough, so think it's too complex for anyone else to understand? I would say the same to you, in your attempt to critique Professor Conrad's piece. As you say, your eyes glazed over so you didn't actually read it. Perhaps you should read it before concluding that it doesn't contain anything of value.

eesmith 3y ago
You original wrote "But the document I linked to is from 2023, related specifically to her misrepresentations in the CMF". I said it was unfair because it was from 2022, with edits in 2023. You agreed that it was from 2022, with edits in 2023. > Perhaps you should read it before concluding that it doesn't contain anything of value. Again, Gish Gallop. This has the mark of throwing everything on the wall in hopes that something will stick. Making a mountain out of every molehill means it's hard to see if there are any actual mountains. You say it's evidence that she "repeatedly misquoted research in her papers". My own spot check of literally the first topic I looked into makes me suspect the author's own ability to interpret the research. I listed my analysis - am I wrong? Otherwise, sure, perhaps that one item I looked at is an exception and the rest of the document contains actual mountains. Since you've read the report, what misquoted research stands out to you as the most damning?