[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: David Marjanovic
david peters <email@example.com> writes:
> DP > In addition, the record of Wang and Zhou is not good with
> regard to
> > identifying pterosaurs and parts of pterosaurs.
> DM >>>>. Ad hominem argument. Pseudoscientific. [I fixed an
DP > A track record is a track record.
I note (with one eyebrow raised for dramatic effect) that this is the
same claim that Dave Unwin made of some of your conclusions. ;-)
With the greatest respect directed to you and Dave Unwin, I think you are
<ahem...gulp> both wrong. If an author's track record on a particular
subject is a reliable indicator of the veracity of the author's
conclusions, then ALL first-time authors' papers would be poo-pooed as
irrelevent. But many authors who are new to a subject have indeed
written authoritative papers on that subject.
[I mean "first-time author" as someone who is new to the *subject*, not
necessarily new to publishing. Cross-over researchers are one example.]
Then of course, there are people like the famed astronomer Fred Whipple,
who considered Archaeopteryx's plumage to be a hoaxer's creation, and a
marine biologist named Hardy who thought that hominids were aquatic
beasts. So there are also examples which show that crossover authors do
occasionally write cr*p.
cheerfully (and with no dog in this fight),
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!