Peer-Review in Science, Discrimination and Public Interest

[Mass_Shyster]

Please explain how this anti-trust violation works.

http://bit.ly/1bCa7AU

 

[CrosbyStreet]

"http://bit.ly/1bCa7AU" Thanks. I have to understand it more thoroughly but at first glance (from the Wikipedia article) it appears that the anti-trust laws concern primarily commerce, trade and other business activities while in the case at hand the issue is of purely intellectual nature, and the wasteful expenditures I inferred are not market generated or related but are matters of budget redistribution, based on taxpayer money. Don't see how anti-trust laws would apply in this case.

 

[stealth2]

I really need to invest in aluminum foil companies...

Seriously, dude - you do NOT have a right to have your thoughts published.

 

[CrosbyStreet]

See, it's not about the right to have my own thoughts published. It's about the right to correct already published thoughts (by others), thoughts which are damaging public interest. I feel that not only do I have the right but I have the obligation to demand that such correction be published. This is the whole point of this thread and I'm trying to understand what would be the best way to approach that problem.

 

[Zigner]

See, it's not about the right to have my own thoughts published. It's about the right to correct already published thoughts (by others), thoughts which are damaging public interest. I feel that not only do I have the right but I have the obligation to demand that such correction be published. This is the whole point of this thread and I'm trying to understand what would be the best way to approach that problem.

You have every right to publish your own opinion. You don't have the right to force others to publish your opinion.

It's really that simple.

 

[CrosbyStreet]

It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of absolute truth. It's an absolute truth that 1 = 2 is an incorrect equality. That equality is at the basis of plethora of bogus theories and activities which damage the public interest. Correcting that is a must and if it's perceived as forcing the demand to correct it, then be it. A way has to be found to force such correction on the unwilling, protective party which damages public interest. This is what I'm trying to find out here -- how to force organized entity incurring damage on society to correct itself. When organized crime is dealt with it's not a matter of opinion.

 

[Zigner]

It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of absolute truth. It's an absolute truth that 1 = 2 is an incorrect equality. That equality is at the basis of plethora of bogus theories and activities which damage the public interest. Correcting that is a must and if it's perceived as forcing the demand to correct it, then be it. A way has to be found to force such correction on the unwilling, protective party which damages public interest. This is what I'm trying to find out here -- how to force organized entity incurring damage on society to correct itself. When organized crime is dealt with it's not a matter of opinion.

Go to my prior reply.
Print it.
Get some correction fluid.
Cover up both instances of the word "opinion."
Hand-write in the word "fact."

There, you have the answer.

 

[CrosbyStreet]

How do I replace "my own" in your text? This isn't my own fact. Its your own fact too. You too know well that 1 = 2 is an incorrect equality. So get me, my persona, out of the picture and your answer is no more. Again, I feel that I have the right and the obligation to demand that correction of an error damaging public interest is to be forced on the unwilling perpetrator. That I take for granted. The question is what is the most efficient way to force this mandatory correction.

 

[Zigner]

How do I replace "my own" in your text? This isn't my own fact. Its your own fact too. You too know well that 1 = 2 is an incorrect equality. So get me, my persona, out of the picture and your answer is no more. Again, I feel that I have the right and the obligation to demand that correction of an error damaging public interest is to be forced on the unwilling perpetrator. That I take for granted. The question is what is the most efficient way to force this mandatory correction.

...which brings us back to doe...


You can't.

 

[Ohiogal]

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.html

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57116.html

 

[CrosbyStreet]

"http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.html

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57116.html "

Yeah, those fallacies are amusing as long as they're not passed as science. There are quite a few such lightly entertaining tricks. Recall Zeno's aporias. That's the point here, falsities must not be passed as science and, especially when such falsities are deeply entrenched, they must be dealt with efficiently. Being deeply entrenched and having giant infrastructures built around them makes it a daunting task to remove these damaging hallucinations. How to do that is the question?

 

[Zigner]

You have received your answers. I'm sorry you do not like them, but they are what they are.

Good day.
Good luck.

 

[CrosbyStreet]

"You can't." If I can't then I should be content w/ the falsities to persist. That's, of course, immoral, let alone unlawful under the circumstances in my second post (the deposition example) if I put up w/ it and don't bring it to court. That's my gut feeling.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.html

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57116.html

Everyone knows that lawyers can't do math.

 

[Zigner]

"You can't." If I can't then I should be content w/ the falsities to persist. That's, of course, immoral, let alone unlawful under the circumstances in my second post (the deposition example) if I put up w/ it and don't bring it to court. That's my gut feeling.

You don't have a cause of action to bring this to court. Feel free to publish your own facts, opinions, whatever. America, what a country!