> From: Remi Cornwall
>
> This guy knows what he's talking about:
> http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/Users/Ewart/Atomic%20Physics%20lecture%20notes%20Final.pdf
>
> I had a quick scan of that paper and it has a high bogusity index and
> requires a high gullibility quotient:
>
> 1)       Don't survey the field (say what is known already)
>
> 2)       Then go on to insult those who know what they are doing
>
> 3)       No error bars on the data
>
> 4)       No putative models put up for the data
>
> 5)       All citations come from the same camp (see 1) it preaches to the
> same church - it doesn't seek to challenge itself and widen the audience
>
> 6)       At the end you've learnt nothing and wasted your time.
>
>
> Come off it. I've had enough, I'm outta here.
>
> Please read (available for free download)

...[snip]

What??? Again????

Since Mr. Cornwall does not appear to have actually "unsubscribed"
(even after Mr. Blanton gave specific instructions on how to perform
the action) I can only assume that he has gone back to stealth mode -
ready to pounce on a moments notice.

Discussions on what constitutes pathological science have been debated
quite a bit within this forum. Rothwell's & Storm's on-line
repository, www.lenr-canr.org, has plenty to say on this subject as
well.

Remi, it seems to me that if you have disagreements with the content
of J. Phillips report,
(http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.5280.pdf) you are likely
to get much more interesting and stimulating feedback if you were to
be a little more specific as to which parts you take issue with.
Lobbing another incoming salvo of on-line essays on the subject akin
to definitions attributed to pathological science, what constitutes
proper science and what doesn't, is an issue well known within this
discussion group.

Why not tell the vortex-l collective something its participants don't
know. Otherwise, it seems to me you may be in danger of parroting the
very same criticisms you accuse others of, i.e.:

See Subject: Line Broadening 2, concerning pathological science

"5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment."

Just a suggestion.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Reply via email to