Jim_Wynne
Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2015,17:52) | | Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 10 2015,17:21) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2015,17:18) | | Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 10 2015,11:48) | | On the basis of "scanning" the paper, would you agree with the characterization of the authors as crackpots? Why or why not? |
And no I would not characterize the authors as crackpots. In my opinion they look more like fellow victims of an academic education system that is happy leaving giant gaps in their learning that they will have to fill on their own. |
So you've concluded, based on not having carefully "studied" the paper, that the authors have "giant gaps in their learning"? Where do you see evidence of this? |
I probably studied the paper much better than you did.
If they were properly prepared then they would have had no problem impressing me. |
Whether or not I studied the paper at all is irrelevant. You "scanned" it and decided it wasn't fit for publication, which is exactly what you criticize others for in dealing with your stuff. That sort of hypocrisy is scientifically unethical, don't you think?
By the way, your "theory" is unfit for publication too, for the same reasons, including that it doesn't explain how intelligence works.
--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT
|
