Posted: Aug 12, 2011 8:16 am
by Brain man
Darkchilde wrote:Sorry Brain Man, but did you really look at that book?

For one, it contains articles that have not passed peer review. Pitkanen's article is one of them. In fact, there are very few articles contained there that have gone through peer review. The problem is that those articles were not written specifically for that book, so, in this case, peer review matters.

Secondly, 90% of Pitkanen's references are his own work! And of those that aren't most have not been published and have not passed peer-review.

That book looks fishy. I cannot find it in print, seems that it exists only on Google Books or online. And one of the authors seems to have a record for fringe hypothesis. Read here:

Walter J Freeman one of the most respected neurophysicists of the late 20th century and regularly citied in university texts, yet rarely references anything but his own papers in his own papers.

Differences in field aside seeing as none of us are more qualified to judge Pitkanen's work, Freeman is socially skilled and gets on with people. Pitkanen does not. There are a lot of mathematicians who have awkward personalities and cannot deal with editors.

from progress in physics

""Owing to furtive jealousy and vested interest, modern science abhors open discussion and wilfully banishes those scientists who question the orthodox views. Very often, scientists of outstanding ability, who point out deficiencies in current theory or interpretation of data, are labelled as crackpots, so that their views can be conveniently ignored."

this happens a lot. The fact is that at that level most of these people can barely understand each others work. Reviewers cannot understand papers, and authors cannot deal with close minded reviewers who reject a paper because they do not understand it. their creative temperaments grind, they fall out and go independent. so what ?

Fringe means nothing. How much of todays science began as fringe ? The majority of these works you put here are by experienced and accomplished scientists far more qualified than yourself. Your sole criteria appears to be that they dont fit some kind of narrow view of behavior. If anything eccentric should indicate they may be highly original.

On top of this I have not seen you once anywhere in the most remote ballpark, technically critique these work you put in here.