vincentML
Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML Any scientific experimentation to support an issue is subject to criticism. If someone cannot accept that basic tenet of science then he should not pretend to be scientific. He should remain in the safe cosy cave of his 'spiritual awareness.' Until a decisive case can be made that will withstand criticism it is pseudoscience. . . . junk science. I think there are several problems with your post. The first, obviously, is that nobody has claimed that the research is immune to criticism. You're just making shit up. The second is that criticism, too, is subject to review and not simply rendered valid by ideological fiat. Finally, the people behind the GCP are experienced researchers with impeccable credentials. Portraying them as purveyors of "junk" and "pseudoscience" is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Firstly, someone threw a hissy fit when I first posted the criticism and did not challenge it. The criticism was that the statistical variation was selective. No one here challenged that peer review. Secondly, appeal to authority or credentials of the researchers. Omg! Really? How junk sciencey is that?
|