Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Check your source!



While the content of the letter is quite general, I think the intent is quite obvious. The person in question declined to publish an article because they felt any reasonable response they gave might be misused. So apparently the person to whom the letter was addressed also perceived the hidden agenda behind the offer. I would doubt that the industry would write a blatent call for refutation, as that would immediately mark such papers as propaganda, and lower their effectiveness.

As to their credentials, I did say I have no knowledge because they did not have a web site, and I could find no further information on the A&M website. So apparently the research associate in question has not generated many on campus articles. Perhaps some else can do the research and try to find out why that particular person was singled out for the offer, while the faculty member who put the letter on the web was not.

I still wonder if someone wrote an article which completely disagreed with the hidden agenda, would it actually be published and earn the $10k? Maybe we will eventually find out.

So why not question credentials? I have seen too many panels where the credentials of the participants did not line up with the panel subject. I have no fear of the person's giving a viewpoint that does not agree with orthodoxy, because he has already disavowed doing so.

Incidentally science really does work by consensus, so the current scientific "truth" is what the orthodoxy proclaims to be true.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

This is it? You can't argue with the content of the letter, because as
Rick has pointed out, it is benign, so you then go to innuendo?
Shameful!

The person addressed has not even presented a critique, but you're going
to give a pre-emptive strike on his credentials and integrity just on
the chance that he MIGHT give a viewpoint that doesn't mesh with the
orthodoxy in vogue.