9/11 WTC7
27.01.2009 um 17:04In case anyone wonders, "every single one" Mr. Gourley is referring to above totals exactly two papers, the Bentham and The Environmentalist papers.
Mr. Gourley is correct that I do not attack these papers at their substance, because they have none. Instead, my objections note that such papers offer no hypothesis, no new data, and no new analysis; that they ignore previously published and reviewed works that would readily clear up their confusion, were they aware of and competent in understanding them; that their papers lack proper citations and references, and are inherently unrepeatable; and that their papers are unsuited for the publications in which they appear.
Mr. Gourley is also correct when he states the editors of those publications suggest I should submit my own paper in response. But the situation is very different. Since Dr. Bazant has put forth an engineering model, made scientific calculations, and made theoretical predictions, his papers are open for competing ideas, alternate models, better calculations, and different interpretations. Follow-up papers are appropriate.
For Gourley et al., however, they have provided none of these things. There is no content to challenge, and all one could do on scientific grounds is point to the many other papers on the topic. It is impossible to write a scientific criticism of a pseudo-scientific paper. The criticisms are editorial in nature.
Nonetheless, he is correct, officials at both publications have suggested I submit a response paper. At any other journal, this suggestion would be total madness -- one does not ordinarily submit a journal paper entitled something along the lines of "Fourteen Editorial Anomalies of the Recent Paper by Jones et al." -- yet that is exactly what these publications have suggested. However, since that also would involve my paying $700 cash (Bentham) or $3000 cash (The Environmentalist) to do so, I am not particularly surprised at their recommendation.
Draw your own conclusions.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4141810&postcount=33
Mr. Gourley is correct that I do not attack these papers at their substance, because they have none. Instead, my objections note that such papers offer no hypothesis, no new data, and no new analysis; that they ignore previously published and reviewed works that would readily clear up their confusion, were they aware of and competent in understanding them; that their papers lack proper citations and references, and are inherently unrepeatable; and that their papers are unsuited for the publications in which they appear.
Mr. Gourley is also correct when he states the editors of those publications suggest I should submit my own paper in response. But the situation is very different. Since Dr. Bazant has put forth an engineering model, made scientific calculations, and made theoretical predictions, his papers are open for competing ideas, alternate models, better calculations, and different interpretations. Follow-up papers are appropriate.
For Gourley et al., however, they have provided none of these things. There is no content to challenge, and all one could do on scientific grounds is point to the many other papers on the topic. It is impossible to write a scientific criticism of a pseudo-scientific paper. The criticisms are editorial in nature.
Nonetheless, he is correct, officials at both publications have suggested I submit a response paper. At any other journal, this suggestion would be total madness -- one does not ordinarily submit a journal paper entitled something along the lines of "Fourteen Editorial Anomalies of the Recent Paper by Jones et al." -- yet that is exactly what these publications have suggested. However, since that also would involve my paying $700 cash (Bentham) or $3000 cash (The Environmentalist) to do so, I am not particularly surprised at their recommendation.
Draw your own conclusions.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4141810&postcount=33
