posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 08:34 AM
reply to post by -PLB-
Do you have any source backing your claims up? Can you link me to say, 5 papers that include the used models? Or are you just making this up?
I could simply take the stance you take, with your weak analogies, such as the square root of 2 when it comes to answering this question. But I will
not. My position on this issue is well known and adhered to by all reputable scientists, universities, and researchers.
First, take a look at the dates of the paper you submitted. What do you think was occurring in the time frames between submission and acceptance? Do
you truly believe the paper was just lying face down on someone's desk the entire time?
Then, read this.
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic
expectation (emphasis mine) is to document, archive and share all data and methodology (emphasis mine) so they are available for
careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full
disclosure(emphasis mine), also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or
compared to chance).
Now, take a look at these papers, all from your website:
Look at the dates of submission.
Look at the dates of publication.
It is evident that all papers underwent a testing and verification process prior to publication. And you know what? The methods of analysis used,
including ALL OF THE DATA VARIABLES, were made available in order to test the author(s) conclusions.
Now, for the sake of everyone reading this and future threads, please put a sock in it.
edit on 2-9-2013 by totallackey because: