7 ms·
Yup Motte-and-bailey fallacy abound Nature (not the magazine) doesn't care if you published a peer-reviewed paper in a high-impact journal. It doesn't care i
by raverbashing 16d ago
Yup
Motte-and-bailey fallacy abound
Nature (not the magazine) doesn't care if you published a peer-reviewed paper in a high-impact journal.
It doesn't care if reviewer 2 thinks you need to quote his friend
It also doesn't care that you think a dewormer works against a virus because it doesn't
> What exactly is the scientific method?
Trying and seeing what sticks. That's literally it.
Of course publishing (and publicity) forces like to jiggle that one way or another
- tremon 16d ago> Trying and seeing what sticks. That's literally it. I'd like to add a readiness to abandon that which doesn't stick. Otherwise you end up with people going 'round in circles around a campfire.
- chermi 16d agoThat's covered by trying and seeing what sticks. That's really all there is to it. I already got downvoted for saying this in other words - feedback against observed phenomena is what matters. Everywhere you see shitty "science" you see either missing or ignored feedback.
- rightnutwingjob 16d agoDo you mind if nature also considers it a lice and mite control agent? Or are you planning on continuing to call it a “dewormer”. Completely factual vs factually complete.
- raverbashing 15d agoWhy wouldn't I agree You might be confusing me with your friends that failed HS biology