--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> [Curtis wrote:] > > > > I am so impressed with your credentials in this field. > > > > You are just another person who mistakes intelligence > > > > for training. Very common in pseudo-science. > > > > See above where I said "make shit up and try to stuff it > > in my mouth"? > > > > Where exactly did I tout, or even hint at, my "credentials" > > or "training" in this field? > > Nowhere.
So what makes you think it's OK to pretend otherwise? > You are trying to make a case that you can make a low > level vetting decision and I am not buying it. Yes, I know. You're using your "epistemic humility" to relieve you of the necessity to do any due diligence, because that way you can continue to hint darkly that it's all a big scam. > So we are just arguing about where your lack of > knowledge comes to play here. I have no idea what this means. > > From the start, my point was that you don't *need* any > > credentials or training to do the kind of low-level check > > I did. > > Calling it a low level check doesn't improve your actual > abilities to undestand the authority of the person posting. Non sequitur; and you're continuing to try to put words in my mouth. I never said it did. > > > > Except that Curtis went to a whole lot of trouble to > > > > try to *discredit* the journal and the paper, getting > > > > practically everything he said wrong. *That's* where > > > > a bit of epistemic humility would have done him some > > > > good, realizing that he needed to read what he was > > > > commenting on. E.g.: > > > > > > My comment apply with or without the distinction you > > > found between a study and a paper about studies. > > > > That was the least of your errors, true. But you made > > it because you didn't bother to determine what it was > > you were complaining about, instead spending most of > > your time composing the lengthy complaint. > > I read as much as I needed to see I didn't have the > background to evaluate it. And if you'd left it at that, as I keep pointing out, you'd have been fine. But your error about study vs. review article got woven into your complaint. > Then I checked out the editors and realized I didn't > have the background to evalute them. And this is just pure bullshit. You needed no background to determine that they both worked at respected institutions, one of which was sponsoring the journal, and that one of the editors held a very responsible position at his institution and also had published widely in his field. Just on the most basic level, that means they have more credibility than someone who *doesn't* work at a respected institution, who *doesn't* hold a responsible position at that institution and *hasn't* published widely in his field, and whose journal is funded out of his own pocket. If the editors worked at the German equivalent of Podunk Community College and hadn't ever published anything, they might still be brilliant editors, but it would be highly unlikely. By the same token, the editors of this journal might be complete flakes, but that would *also* be highly unlikely. The *likelihood* is that they're both reasonably respectable, reasonably well-qualified researchers and editors. To claim you have no basis for making that kind of evaluation is silly and irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. This is what laypersons *do* when they want to have some idea of a person's credibility. They don't just throw up their hands and declare themselves incompetent, and then turn around and insinuate that *because* they can't determine for certain what the story is, *therefore* it's most likely scurrilous. <snip> > > Again: It was an *invited commentary* (one among 14) > > specifically on a paper previously published in that > > journal. No other journal is going to extend a mass > > invitation to comment on a paper published in a > > *different* journal. This ain't rocket science, Curtis. > > The "first choice" question simply doesn't apply. > > Your most legitimate complaint. i withdraw my suspicions > that he was shopping this paper around and landed here. Thank you, finally. Why did it take you so long? I mentioned this in my first post in this exchange and every one thereafter. How many rounds have we gone now? <snip> > > > Neither of us is trained in this field. I have no idea > > > what the brain waves the studies found mean. > > > > Perfectly reasonable objection. If you'd stuck to that, > > it wouldn't be a problem. > > Oh I give you more credit for finding something... Have I objected to any of your other lectures to Buck on similar topics? > > > > Curtis also assumed, without having bothered to check > > > > it out, that because the journal publishes only online > > > > rather than on paper, therefore it couldn't be > > > > legitimate. > > > > > > Not true. I pointed out that it had been around for 3 > > > years. Since I put up Websites and do not know the guys > > > who put it up I have no way to disctinguish this site > > > from one I could put up. > > > > Yes, you do. A Web site you put up is hardly likely to > > be sponsored by a major scientific research institution. > > Plus which, you'd be unlikely to put up a site with > > software that was specifically designed to facilitate > > online journal publication--complete with features for > > routing the workflow among the editorial staff at each > > stage of the publication process and archives of the > > various stages of the submission and acceptance/ > > rejection process. > > Not if I was commintted to the project. Yeah? What respected scientific institution that you worked at would you get to sponsor the journal? <snip> > > > I am not claiming that I know it is not respectible. I am > > > saying I don't know if it is and it is easy to put up a > > > site so I am suspicious. > > > > "Did you even go to their site to see WHERE it was > > published? The International Journal of Dream Research is > > a Website that has been operating for 3 years who lets > > members 'publish' research." > > > > That's a tad bit more than a mere expression of suspicion. > > I am considering the source, David who is presenting > another technical paper to believers as it they could > possibly undestand the context of his claims. That's why he added a lot of less-technical stuff to his summary that they *could* understand, of course, to give them some context. It is > in the context of his history of scientific flim-flamery, > using technical papers as sciency marketing. It's quite remarkable how you can't possibly evaluate anything in his paper, but you just know he's a flimflammer. I will > always start with the assumption that something is up > when dealing with anything he publishes. But you don't restrict it to him, you try to smear the journal editors and the journal itself. > > > > But the fact that the journal is supported by one of > > > > the most prestigious research universities in Europe, > > > > > > I don't know this. I haven't studied which ones are > > > prestigious or not. > > > > YOU DON'T HAVE TO "STUDY" THEM. Look them up on the Web. > > Find out what those who *are* qualfied to judge prestige > > say about them. > > Don't share your confidence here. Sorry, but that's ridiculous. > > > And even prestigious universities have their nutters > > > > Typically such universities don't fund journals edited > > by their nutters. > > I don't know this and neither do you. I *do* know this. My father was a professor--head of his department--at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, so I do have some idea of how academia operates. > > > > and the top in Germany--another easily discernible > > > > fact that Curtis overlooked--suggests that the journal > > > > is hardly bottom-of-the-barrel trash. > > > > > > This may be the vanity project of a professeur about to > > > be canned. Your assumptions make you an easy mark. > > > > Gee, do you think you could extend that stretch just a > > little bit? It's one thing not to let oneself be an > > easy mark; it's quite another to accord equal likelihood > > to all possible situations, including those with the > > tiniest of probabilities, just because you can't > > absolutely rule them out (does that exhortation sound > > familiar, Curtis?). > > I am starting with David. That gives me suspicions right > off. It is an earned prejudice. YMMV It justifies your suspicions that the journal is a vanity project of a professor about to be canned? Give me a break. > > > > > > It isn't just a "good distinction," it invalidates > > > > > > most of what you went on to say about the paper. > > > > > > > > > > No, what I said stands. > > > > > > > > Au contraire, Pierre. You fouled up but good. > > I made two specific mistakes within my points that neither > of us had the ability to evaluate the paper which was the > original question. And if you'd stuck to that, I wouldn't have objected. You've *finally* acknowledged your errors about the paper, but you're still sticking stubbornly to the absurd notion that you have no basis to make even a low-level evaluation of the journal and its editors. <snip> > > > No. You just think you can evaluate things because > > > you have Google. You mistake information for context > > > > Context is composed of information, Curtis. You > > bypassed the information that could have given you some > > low-level context in favor of your own informationless > > (and erroneous) context determined by your prior biases. > > Yes I could have caught my minor errors while you are > missing my real point as usual. Google had nothing to do with those errors. The correct information in those cases was on the journal Web site and in O-J's paper. *Man*, you're dishonest! > > > > > And I'll add to it. People in TM think they know all > > > > > sorts of scientific things from their long association > > > > > with science as marketing that they really don't know. > > > > > They think that googling a few people makes them > > > > > experts in a technical field of specialization. > > > > > > > > None of which, as Curtis knows, applies to me. Again, > > > > he's making shit up and trying to stuff it in my mouth > > > > because he has no other recourse. > > > > > > You just demonstrated your confidence in evaluating > > > this site's credibiltiy. You just did what I was > > > saying. > > > > Again, you aren't dumb, so the only explanation for this > > comment is sophistry. "Googling a few people" does not > > make anyone an expert in anything, let alone a "technical > > field of specialization," nor did I ever even *begin* to > > suggest otherwise. You just made that up and tried to > > shove it in my mouth. > > And renaming something "low level vetting" doen't > increase my confidence in your ability to vet these > guys. You know who "renamed" it? *You* did--by accusing me of claiming "expertise in a technical field of specialization" and "knowing all sorts of scientific things," when it was always, and quite obviously, just a matter of low-level vetting that anybody could do. And when I pointed out what a lie you were telling, you claimed I had just done what you were saying, another big fat lie. Now you're accusing me of "renaming" what I was doing, which is a third lie. Three in a row, all on the record. Ick. You are such a creep. > > > > > The nature of the paper is TM propaganda in a sciency > > > > > format. It impressed you > > > > > > > > It did? Perhaps you could show us where I indicated > > > > that I found it impressive. That may be quite difficult, > > > > however, since I explicitly indicated *to the contrary*. > > > > > > > > A review paper invited by the journal editors that > > > > didn't undergo peer review and was published along with > > > > 14 others on the same topic does not qualify as > > > > impressive in my book. You just got more of your own > > > > shit splattered all over your face. > > > > > > > > Ironically, if you had taken *this* tack instead of > > > > the one you did, I would have agreed with you rather > > > > than going after you, and you wouldn't have been > > > > exposed as both ignorant and arrogant. > > > > > > And now you have exposed your intentions all along. > > > You are so fond of scolding you make up perspectives > > > to apply as you have here. > > > > What perspectives have I made up, Curtis? Please be > > specific. I'm still waiting for a response on this. <snip> > > Now you're just stringing together insulting words > > without the slightest concern about whether there's > > any basis for them. If your opponent is getting too > > close for you to aim your blows, just strike out > > blindly; maybe you'll get lucky. > > > > In this case, you've only managed to smack yourself > > in the head. > > Yeah so now that we have sorted out my errors in > assumptions perhaps you can answer Doug's innocent question. > What do you think of this paper? I've already told you what I think of it at least twice. Why are you pretending otherwise? > > > > > > > Neither do I. Since I know David's previously published > > > > > > > articles and how prestige conscious he is, I smell a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rat. > > > > > > > > > > > > No rat to be smelled, sorry. You paid no attention to > > > > > > what I wrote in the other post: It wasn't a research > > > > > > report, it was a review, in the context of a commentary > > > > > > on a previously published article in the journal that > > > > > > was *invited by the editors*. > > > > > > > > > > > > And if O-J is "prestige conscious," as you claim, the > > > > > > fact that he responded to the invitation from this > > > > > > journal suggests that he considers it "legitimate" and > > > > > > respectable. > > > > > > > > No response from Curtis, who got well and truly > > > > caught in his own trap. > > > > And still no response from Curtis to this. Still nothing. > > > > > And here you are defending him. > > > > > > > > Right, because you don't think much of him, it's OK for > > > > you to say lots of things about him that aren't true. > > > > Nor this. Nothing on this either. Oh, and by the way, I notice that you chose not to correct Barry when, in his comments on your post, he gave you credit for something you hadn't done: "And one of the reasons is that you have successfully 'pulled back the curtain' on many of her pronounce- ments and pointed out what they really are -- facts gained not from real experience and real study but from a few seconds on Google, but then presented as if they *were* the result of real experience and real knowledge." Barry didn't read the exchange, so he's just making it up, as he usually does. You have no such excuse. Creep.
