I do not understand how my thread on French virologist Luc Montagnier is any less factual than many of the threads in GQ. The question was clearly on a rather technical paper and whether I was interpreting it correctly. In fact, thanks to the helpful people with biochemistry experience, it was pretty fairly concluded that my interpretation was correct.
Unfortunately, by relegating this thread on a highly technical subject to IMHO you have more or less guaranteed that no new technical information will come. I know this, because for my first few years on this board I completely avoided anything but GQ, and I suspect people of similar mind do the same.
The fact is, that just because one person decides that no one on this board is qualified to answer the question does not mean that it is a fact. I think that discussing a Nobel Laureats recent controversial work is quite literally only suitable GQ, and the only non-factual opinion contaminating that thread is the person claiming that the thread was non-factual.
If this board suddenly thinks that we should require peer reviewed style discussions in every thread, then we should be certain that this philosophy is strictly enforced in all GQ threads. I personally find this board more useful as a sounding board like drinks with the speaker after a seminar, but it’s not my call. I certainly don’t think it’s up to one poster with expertise in a completely unrelated field to summarily decide that the rest of us are unqualified to discuss a scientific paper.
With regards to your post in the duplicate, I obviously disagree. The question was whether or not my interpretation of that paper was reasonable. There was in fact, plenty of factual information answering the question and it was only one persons insistence that it was nonfactual that determined it’s result. Perhaps the question could have been worded in a way that would suit Stranger, but the discussion would have been the same. There was a clear factual discussion of the merits of that paper going on only to be interrupted by it’s move to IMHO.
I guess in your mind then, chemists and biochemists can’t have a fact based discussion in GQ. The question was actually answered factually, with good evidence that this guy has gone off the deep end. I suppose if you want to nitpick about what “gone off the deep end” means, perhaps you should get a law degree, it’s not the sort of thing scientists get hung up on. The fact is, the paper in question presents very questionable science and explains it away with nonsense. Those are undeniable facts and they are facts that are unlikely to have come to light in another forum.
I agree that GQ was the wrong forum for the thread. However, IMHO is even less appropriate. The thread belongs in Great Debates, as the focus of the discussion is the validity of the article.
Unless the thread degenerates into “Who is your favorite scientific con-artist?” it doesn’t belong in IMHO.
A report of a duplicate thread is a non-controversial thing. Posting that it’s been reported lets other people know they don’t need to report it themselves.
I don’t really see what in that thread was debatable. I don’t see anyone debating anyone about the content of the paper. The discussion, as far as the paper goes, was entirely factual, and certainly more factual than “Do a Bulls Moo?” It seems at the behest of one poster, the Moderators have changed the standards for one particular thread.
I’m sorry if people are suddenly offended by invective towards “nontraditional” scientific practices. Perhaps someone should tell Cecil about this new development, as his articles are riddled with it.
I just read the whole thread. Though it has the usual digressions and side comments, much of it was excellent analysis of how a good experiment should be done along with a critique of how this particular experiment was done. That’s pure GQ.
Let’s look at the question posed by the o.p. in the thread in question:
The first part of the o.p. starts out by characterizing the paper, the claims within, and the author as unambiguously fraudulent and/or delusional, and the claim itself as tantamount to science fantasy (“teleportation”) with no discussion of the paper or indeed an indication of having comprehended the claims to any credible depth. It then poses the question of whether the author is a “binaries scam artist” (I still don’t know that that means) and if he will be “endorsing HIV curing magnets,” further polluting any genuine factual query with negative semantics.
I understand the question that you seem to think you were asking, i.e. “Do the claims made in this paper have any credible validity?”, and yes, that question does have a factual answer or at least qualifies for discussion on the merits of the claims, which are frankly pretty far out there and although dressed up in a pretty good semblance of scientific jargon are not supported by theory and experiment to a degree in accordance with the extraordinary nature of said claims. But the questions you actually asked, to wit, if Montagnier was avaricious or insane, are not legitimate factual questions based upon the content of the paper or anything short of direct evidence of a conspiracy to defraud or personal and intimate knowledge of the author’s state of mind. This was a very ad hominem and intellectually dishonest way to ask what should have been a very straightforward question about the falsifiable scientific merit of the claims made within the paper.
Criticism of the OP is duly noted. I will admit to being unfair, and could have worded the OP in a better manner. Obviously, I am not concerned about the welfare of Dr. Montaigner. I am concerned for the welfare of desperate AIDS patients whom have good reason to consider him authority on the subject. I consider outing such potentially harmful bad science to be right at the pinnacle of “Fighting Ignorance”.
The fact that the OP itself is poorly worded does not suddenly make the the thread equivalent to “Stupidest thing you ever did to yourself”. (Which incidentally, sounds like it may be very entertaining and I will head right over to read it.)
You’re still missing the point. The questions in the o.p. weren’t just “poorly worded”; they literally didn’t pose queries with factual answers. Hence, the o.p. did not belong in General Questions (though many of the thoughtful followup responses did belong in a thread that posed legitimate questions about the credibility of the claims).
I get that you were trying to be funny, but in the midst of doing so you neglected to actually pose a useful or honest question. That distinction (which is made in many of the satirical columns by Cecil or Staff Reports which first pose the question and then poke fun at holes or leaps of logic therein) is what distances their approach from that of the o.p.
Unfortunately, OPs in GQ sometimes compromise their likelihood of getting factual answers by “poisoning the well” from the start, expressing strong opinions or non-factual criticism rather than simply asking a straightforward question. If you want factual answers, ask factual questions, rather than interjecting your own opinions.
I’ll note that even further in the thread, you continued to put the question in non-factual terms:
It seems to me the intent of the OP was to discuss the merits of the paper, rather than the state of the researcher’s mental acuity. Unfortunately, as worded, the OP appears to be more about the state of the researcher than the research, although discussing the merits of the research is the basis for judging the researcher’s mental state.
I think I see why Gary moved it. If you wanted to discuss the research, then the question probably should have focused more on that than what was up with the researcher.
Maybe repost in GQ a question about the status of the research rather than “has so and so gone mad?”
Stranger, drop the business about “binaries”. WarmNPrickly has already stated that it was a spellcheck autocorrection and he does not recall the word he meant. Let it go.
That may be the case Colibri, but it was clearly not the case in this thread where the answers were factual, useful and to the point of the question. It may be my opinion that “off the deep end” covers the category of formerly great scientists swinging wildly on crackpot theories, but I think think the majority of scientists will agree with me. In fact, I think the majority of scientists on this message board will agree with me. It certainly appears that way in this thread.
It may be of some news to you, that practicing scientists can be a really snipey bunch, and conversations outside of official publications are often filled with colorful language describing their colleagues. The SDMB certainly does not rise to the level of any official publication. It has all the authority of drinks with the speaker after a seminar.