On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> This comment is tangled in another long thread. I would like to repeat it, > to draw attention to it. > > Joshua Cude wrote: > > Until replication of Miles' heat/helium claims makes it past replication, >> there is nothing to critique. >> > > Miles' heat/helium claims were published in peer reviewed journals in 1993 > and 1994. > > If Cude knew that, he was being dishonest. > Of course I knew that. We've been over this a dozen times. That's why I said *replication*. So it was not dishonest. Even advocates admit that Miles' results were preliminary and crude, and they were controversial, and challenged in refereed literature. Whether or not you think Jones or Miles prevailed in that exchange, I think most people would agree that a resolution to such a controversy requires replication, with improvements. But in 16 years, no quantitative replication of what is surely an important CF experiment have made it past peer review. So, I see nothing to critique. That was my point. Just yesterday, you said, "I am sick of your puerile nonsense. I will not respond to you again." So, you are not only blatantly dishonest, but took some trouble to draw attention to your dishonesty. (Not that it is particularly consequential, to be sure.)
