2 ms·

> So it's ok to go Ad Hominem against anything that contradicts our current knowledge? Ok, got it The whole point of scientific journals is to change our curre

> So it's ok to go Ad Hominem against anything that contradicts our current knowledge? Ok, got it The whole point of scientific journals is to change our current knowledge, so that's not really a fair criticism of my dismissal. Read even just the Wikipedia article and you'll see that this journal has several issues: (1) the quality of its peer review is questionable; (2) it appears to promote fringe views; (3) it has been widely criticized by the scientific community. So yes, after criticizing the research itself, I also dug around and discovered problems with the journal it was being published in. I don't see anything wrong with doing so. Had the data looked less bogus I probably wouldn't have been suspicious enough to investigate the source.

raverbashing 14y ago
"So yes, after criticizing the research itself" Your point was that these features look as similar as other features and hence they should be the same. Now, the given article really reads like a press release more than anything, but I don't remember if the original article had something else on the picture. What I would think is that (but I am not sure) since these are electron microscope pictures, you can get a composition analysis of the sample from the microscope, hence being able to differentiate the features. And no, I'm not taking this research too seriously as well, I just find it funny that some people jump at it and seem to dismiss it at first sight.