Changes

:::To JPatt I would ask, how do we distinguish between a reply from an expert correcting an error and a reply from “Big Science” covering up the truth?   

:::To JPatt I would ask, how do we distinguish between a reply from an expert correcting an error and a reply from “Big Science” covering up the truth?   

:::If you send a good criticism to “Big Science” which they do not like and are willing to cover up you would expect a dismissive reply, as has been received.  However, if you sent a bad criticism to “Big Science” you would also expect a dismissive reply, as has been received.  That a dismissive reply has been received does not distinguish between the two possibilities.  Solely from the reply, therefore, we cannot conclude evidence of a conspiracy on the part of “Big Science” nor can we conclude that the letter was unsound.  We would expect “he is wrong” whether or not Mr. Schlafly was wrong.

:::If you send a good criticism to “Big Science” which they do not like and are willing to cover up you would expect a dismissive reply, as has been received.  However, if you sent a bad criticism to “Big Science” you would also expect a dismissive reply, as has been received.  That a dismissive reply has been received does not distinguish between the two possibilities.  Solely from the dismissive nature of the reply, therefore, we cannot conclude evidence of a conspiracy on the part of “Big Science” nor can we conclude that the letter was unsound.  We would expect “he is wrong” whether or not Mr. Schlafly was wrong.

:::How can we distinguish?  Can we distinguish?  Well, yes.  Firstly the detail of the reply will give clues.  The reply was not “un-responsive”, it gave clear reasons why the letter was not to be published: the objections ignore elementary statistics and the final comment is “uncalled for”.  These are reasons to reject the criticisms.

:::How can we distinguish?  Can we distinguish?  Well, yes.  Firstly the detail of the reply will give clues.  The reply was not “un-responsive”, it gave clear reasons why the letter was not to be published: the objections ignore elementary statistics and the final comment is “uncalled for”.  These are reasons to reject the criticisms.