NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 06 2015,07:43) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 06 2015,05:15) | | Quote | | Writing letters to friends that can take a month or more to arrive and attending meetings where there is a small roomful of like minded people is also part of a bygone era, that does not work in the modern age of science. |
Absolutely, but you said that "printed journals/magazines" were the only way to communicate scientific results, and that's not true. Also, books remain a valid means of publishing results.
| Quote | | Anyone who needs to dwell on perfect English grammar is no friend of science. That's just more of the "science journal" mentality that turned science into a writing contest. But of course the companies that charge researchers several thousand dollars to make papers acceptable to science journals have a good reason to like it that way. |
I'm not asking for perfect grammar, but just comprehensible writing where the readers don't have to guess at what the heck you are trying to say several times per sentence. However, your many additional minor quirks and errors are off-putting, to say the least, which interferes with you getting your message to your readers. You want your readers thinking "now that's insightful" and "how interesting", not "what on earth is he talking about?" and "good grief, what a moron." |
I was trying to remain specific to what is often demanded in this thread, which is to publish in science journals instead of where I normally publish my computer models (at Planet Source Code).
It would be nice for me to have the time to keep up with my writing work. But I can't afford it right now. But oh well, it's only science. It's only science. It's only science. . |
What's demanded of you in/by this thread, and countless other locations on the net you have infested over the years is not so much publication in science journals but rather to do the necessary pre-work that such publication would demonstrate.
Your flaws are not that you are unpublished. They are only just barely that your work is unpublishable as it stands.
The flaws in your work are incoherency, lack of definitions, lack of precision, lack of operational definitions, lack of evidence, presence of internal contradictions, etc.
The flaws are exacerbated by your continual refusal to grapple with substantive issues that have been raised regarding each of these flaws. You get huffy, you get snooty, you get petulant and whiny, but somehow you never get to the point. You never rise to a challenge. You never, despite your repeated lies to the contrary, explain anything about your "theory" nor about how your "theory" and your risible pseudo-Roomba are related.
You never provide evidence. You never provide clarification of your utterly banal and uncontroversial "premise". No one ever anywhere claimed that there are no features of the universe best explained by intelligent cause. Yet that is all you are claiming, that there are such things. Well, yippee, welcome to the crowd.
What you need to do is describe *which* things you are speaking of, why those things specifically require explanation by intelligent cause, and the provide the operational definitions, causal links, logical structure and coherent argument to show that you have such an explanation.
You have done none of those things. You have refused to engage at any point on any single one of those flaws.
You are mega=parsecs removed from being able to publish in a science journal until you remove those flaws.
You are also mega-parsecs removed from being able to publish in a science journal until your linguistic skills improve dramatically or until you find a Gaulin to English translator and a seriously motivated editor.
But of course, first you'd have to convince them, which loops the problem right back to the flaws and your refusal to engage to rectify them.
|
