Recent discussion of Alexander Parkhomov reminds me that he called himself a sinner.
The actions he took cause some to claim that all his work must now be suspect. I assert that such a claim violates accepted scientific protocol. Scientists take pride in gathering data and making reasonable conjectures based on that data. If I make one unreasoned action, I create one data point for observing scientists. What scientist would base a theory on one data point? Thus I will vigorously defend the following conjecture: Alexander Parkhomov is neither crazy nor uniformly unprofessional. I am profoundly disappointed to read a scientist write "... It is more like a sign of mental illness." based on one data point. Perhaps the wrongs of the remote past, which fuel the wrongs of today, condition such strongly worded reactions. The above is not meant to attack the beliefs of those who feel strongly that Parkhomov has wounded the community. My aim is to inject the scientific method into the discussion of his admitted sin. To allude to senility and insanity goes too far - there is too little data.
