-The word “charlatan” made its way into English from French, where it originally meant a “potion seller”´, I did not know that!, why I am not surprised!.
Lamarckism survives and thrives in meta-genetics, sorry, epigenetics.
"I might have to remove Kammerer’s name from that list.", not really, epigenetics has to be under control of the central dogma of biology too. There is a review that says that quietly in around the middle of the article in subtle terms. And epigenetics has no explanatory power that was not created by epigenetic myth, as far as I can tell. It solves no outstanding problem in biology it didn´t create.
In my limited experience at UCSF, most scientific article makers do not plan experiments according to the scientific method nor the scientific experimental method. They go fishing for results. And the negative result has no "paradigmatic" consequence because those experiments are not based on scientific reasoning. They keep fishing until publishability...
Only Olivier Lardinois at UCSF, as far as I could tell, did proper, planned, experiments. And as far as I can tell, as a human being, he was not that great: he mobbed me too.
Experimental hypotheses in modern "scientific research" are not conclusions of a scientific argument. Saying the wet sciences are prone to feebles, seems to me obfuscation.
"So, if someone claims to have achieved unique results with a super-secret method available only to them...", Big Pharma does that a lot, just ask for their original research data, even to the FDA and verify they do that a lot.
I would love if you can comment on my posts Beauty and Last, the first is informal logic:
Oh!, before reading the article, which I will: in Academia!
Scientific Comedy:
https://open.substack.com/pub/federicosotodelalba/p/sci-and-math-are-having-a-second?r=4up0lp
-The word “charlatan” made its way into English from French, where it originally meant a “potion seller”´, I did not know that!, why I am not surprised!.
Lamarckism survives and thrives in meta-genetics, sorry, epigenetics.
"I might have to remove Kammerer’s name from that list.", not really, epigenetics has to be under control of the central dogma of biology too. There is a review that says that quietly in around the middle of the article in subtle terms. And epigenetics has no explanatory power that was not created by epigenetic myth, as far as I can tell. It solves no outstanding problem in biology it didn´t create.
In my limited experience at UCSF, most scientific article makers do not plan experiments according to the scientific method nor the scientific experimental method. They go fishing for results. And the negative result has no "paradigmatic" consequence because those experiments are not based on scientific reasoning. They keep fishing until publishability...
Only Olivier Lardinois at UCSF, as far as I could tell, did proper, planned, experiments. And as far as I can tell, as a human being, he was not that great: he mobbed me too.
Experimental hypotheses in modern "scientific research" are not conclusions of a scientific argument. Saying the wet sciences are prone to feebles, seems to me obfuscation.
"So, if someone claims to have achieved unique results with a super-secret method available only to them...", Big Pharma does that a lot, just ask for their original research data, even to the FDA and verify they do that a lot.
I would love if you can comment on my posts Beauty and Last, the first is informal logic:
https://federicosotodelalba.substack.com/p/beauty?r=4up0lp
https://federicosotodelalba.substack.com/p/last?r=4up0lp
Great Article, BTW.