The science behind the claims is being scientifically discussed and the preponderance of available evidence provide no experimental or theoretical support.
We're separately discussing the author's credibility as the claims cannot be verified by anyone but the authors. One example of a time we do this is the "disclosures" section of any academic publication.
Are you arguing someone with a conflict of interest and history of making fraudulent arguments should not be placed under heightened scrutiny?
Combining both available evidence and author credibility is completely valid and leads one to the conclusion that this is incorrect until proven otherwise. It's not like we're solely dismissing the claim because the authors have poor credibility.
Preponderance of available evidence is irrelevant to assessing scientific claims of fact.
The original claims only need to be rigorously verified once. As it currently stands the original claims are claimed to have been partially replicated. What's needed now is the rigor.
haldujai|2 years ago
We're separately discussing the author's credibility as the claims cannot be verified by anyone but the authors. One example of a time we do this is the "disclosures" section of any academic publication.
Are you arguing someone with a conflict of interest and history of making fraudulent arguments should not be placed under heightened scrutiny?
Combining both available evidence and author credibility is completely valid and leads one to the conclusion that this is incorrect until proven otherwise. It's not like we're solely dismissing the claim because the authors have poor credibility.
pcrh|2 years ago
The original claims only need to be rigorously verified once. As it currently stands the original claims are claimed to have been partially replicated. What's needed now is the rigor.