Quote:
Originally Posted by ATKINS
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ATKINS
[snip]
As for your calling EU ideas "vague, woolly, illogical, etc", may I point out that this is itself a totally vague and meaningless value judgement which, in any case, you can only legitimately make once you have actually read about them. This sort of intellectual approach reminds me of what I remember your once writing in the defunct "More from Arp et al." thread, when you claimed never to have read any of Arp's work in general and his latest book "Seeing Red" in particular because it would "only make [you] angry".
|
Please provide a reference, where Nereid talks about never to have read any of Arp's published papers. |
The comment I was referring to can be found in this post of yours, with ensuing discussion of the point in the following posts.
Sorry, it was a couple of years back and my recollection was only half accurate: you were talking specifically about Arp's latest book "Seeing Red".
What you actually said was "I expect that if I did [read the book] I'd get extremely angry." |
Thanks for setting the record straight.
I think this is consistent with what I have said all along - let's start with material that's published in papers in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, or arXiv preprints (lower pertinence), posters and papers presented at relevant scientific conferences, meetings, or symposia (lower pertinence), or standard textbooks used in relevant university (etc) courses. And, if the only material presented in support of an ATM idea, here in this section of BAUT, is webpages, books, and so on (i.e. not one of the four kinds of material I listed), let's all be very clear about it as early as possible.
I think I have also been clear about why ... among other things, a published paper (in a relevant peer-reviewed journal) has been through a review process, so a wide range of questions - concerning provenance, pertinence, accuracy, recognition of essential previous work, and so on - can be given much lower priority (and BAUT members can focus more quickly on questioning and challenging the
content of ATM ideas being presented).
As an aside: even books are to be preferred to webpages ... book publishers are very well aware of the need to ensure all copyrights and (photo, image) credits are properly given (and, in many cases, an explicit permission must be given, by the owner of the material to be used), so it's unlikely that, for example, image credits will be missing or mis-attributed ... oh, and quotes ("
NASA spokesperson, Joan Chardonnay, said "EU crackpots will, henceforth, be denied permission to use NASA sourced images", at press conference {date, location}", to give a
completely made-up example) can be assumed to be accurate - which is more than can be said for what appears on webpages - though they may, of course, still be taken out of context.