News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on /story/30030408. Parent comment

Re: by josephcsible on Friday January 21, 2022 @08:05PM (#30032038)
I assume you both think the paper's methodology is unimpeachable, since otherwise one of you would have said something about that instead of just making ad hominem attacks.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by temikus on Friday January 21, 2022 @09:11PM (#30032512)
How is this ad hominem? This is like an article about cardiac health that says that we need to immediately stop administering Aspirin to the entire population written by an OBGYN with a plumber that sells Tylenol as a co-author.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by josephcsible on Friday January 21, 2022 @09:22PM (#30032596)
It's an ad hominem because you're saying bad things about the author rather than bad things about the paper. There's a reason that blind reviews for journals exist.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by temikus on Friday January 21, 2022 @09:31PM (#30032676)
I’m not saying bad things about the author rather that the authors don’t hold proper credentials so the reader should examine it carefully.
[ Parent | on HN ]