Paper Methodology Critique
Discussions center on debating the flaws and validity of a specific research paper's methodology, with users challenging each other to provide substantive criticisms or evidence of having read the paper.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
That article is a serious scholarly critique, did you read it?
Thank you, I'm surprised this wasn't a bigger point of discussion. The whole methodology and the conclusions drawn are dubious at best. I guess most people didn't read the article!
What makes you say that, did you read the paper and find flaws in their methodology? Or does it disagree with your preconceived narrative and dismiss it out of hand?
Interesting thought, can you talk more about the methods and their flaws? Also what’s the article you’re referring to?
I'm pointing out elementary flaws in the methodology. As such the article wasn't convincing for me, and this is my feedback.
Do you have a substantiave criticism of the paper that I linked?
OK, I wouldn't dispute that claim without reading the full paper and the criticism of it properly. Thanks for the clarification.
But what you're saying simply isn't true.The article clearly explained their faulty methodologies and this is precisely what I've pointed out. In fact, you are tilting at a windmill, reading more into my comments than what I've written. Projection, much?
I thought the arxiv paper was fairly convincing. What's wrong with it?
Can you elaborate on why you think the paper is flawed please?