Harvard Asks 31 FakeNews Papers be Retracted from Journals

[_subgenius]

Merely posting material does not prove expertise.

unless it is posted in a journal that echoes your already established belief, correct?

[_Themis]

You haven't posted any material here. You just made assertions of your expertise. You have posted some material on the climate science threads, but they just exposed your lack of expertise and unwillingness to understand the issue. People with real expertise tend to provide links to back up their own personal explanations or provide material people can go to to see if their explanations fit the evidence. Those pretending to have expertise usually learn through embarrassment not to make explanations of their own because they always expose ignorance, but they usually never learn to read their links for understanding.

Keep telling yourself that...

You are just showing you really don't have this claimed expertise when you play they kind of game to avoid getting into specifics of your assertions. In this thread that would be about why renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuel energy in whole or a significant amount more then we are doing now.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

These gentlemen simply point out that many studies, the methodology, the premise, it's all crap.

Not really. It's the scientists who are the ones who bring up problems in academia and then these gentleman try to use it to attack the sciences as unreliable. They usually only mean certain sciences who conclusions they don't like, and then they create threads like this one with a straw-man argument suggesting people here think scientists never lie or view journals as some holy writings. If he had left out that one sentence he would have been ok.

No. Absolutely not. You're not tracking the conversation. The gentlemen who're on the Joe Rogan podcast are academics pointing out the problems with trash academic papers being submitted for peer review and published.

- Doc

[_Themis]

No. Absolutely not. You're not tracking the conversation. The gentlemen who're on the Joe Rogan podcast are academics pointing out the problems with trash academic papers being submitted for peer review and published.

- Doc

I'm referring to people like WD who want to use this to make poor arguments against science in order to support some very unscientific beliefs.

[_DoubtingThomas]

No. Absolutely not. You're not tracking the conversation. The gentlemen who're on the Joe Rogan podcast are academics pointing out the problems with trash academic papers being submitted for peer review and published.

- Doc

But you won't find a lot of trash papers published in physical science journals.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

No. Absolutely not. You're not tracking the conversation. The gentlemen who're on the Joe Rogan podcast are academics pointing out the problems with trash academic papers being submitted for peer review and published.

- Doc

But you won't find a lot of trash papers published in physical science journals.

My sweet Summer child...

- Doc

[_DoubtingThomas]

My sweet Summer child...

- Doc

At least not in well-known physical science journals. If I am wrong give me the stats or some examples.
Show me the trash papers in Nature.
https://www.nature.com/

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

DT,

This article explains why your premise is faultier than any of us feared.

http://theconversation.com/the-peer-rev ... pair-72669

After reading the article, if you want to discuss solutions I invite you to offer a few.

- Doc

[_Chap]

Merely posting material does not prove expertise.

unless it is posted in a journal that echoes your already established belief, correct?

No. As I said, but as you omitted to quote:

Merely posting material does not prove expertise.

You have to show that you understand it sufficiently to engage with it critically, so as to appreciate its strengths and its limitations: otherwise you simply show that you know how to copy paste links from your favourite 'scientists against climate change' website.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

No. Absolutely not. You're not tracking the conversation. The gentlemen who're on the Joe Rogan podcast are academics pointing out the problems with trash academic papers being submitted for peer review and published.

- Doc

I'm referring to people like WD who want to use this to make poor arguments against science in order to support some very unscientific beliefs.

I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who is, apparently, responding to someone else by responding to me, who was, conversely, responding to Chap.

Chap said 'A'.

I quoted Chap's 'A' and provided 'B'.

You responded to me with 'X' which was in context of Water Dog's 'Y', but I had no idea because you responded to me, not him.

C'mon, man. Just admit you derfed your response to me. It's ok. I've made mistakes and owned up to them.

- Doc