Cool, thank you for the link! It's highly appreciated, in particular because I rarely find people who read scientific papers. I used to write in the STEM community on Steemit and posted my sources underneath the articles. Rarely they were opened or even read. It's not always easy to find those non mainstream sources, so I am happy that you provide me with one.
RE: Lanka Throws Consensus Science Under The Bus
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Lanka Throws Consensus Science Under The Bus
lol. I used to do similar on steem! I managed the mathematics trail for some months, then physics, but very few people - that was before steemstem started.
Papers can be hard to read when outside one's field, but it's just a matter of language, and looking up definitions - it then becomes a bit faster. Sometimes is enough to understand the abstract. Often the references are very interesting, especially when old "forgotten" (or ignored) papers. eg the dangers of EMF go all the way back to 1940s/50s with radar research - they didn't wish to kill their radar operators!
Stefan Lanka's original paper (1993) is hard to find, apart from the paywalled version! zero citations - imagine that! The science cabal really want to hide the guy.
Yes, it looks like it.
Personally, I am not experienced or educated in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology.
I have researched communication and social sciences and psychology and I would think that these are not really sciences, but rather an art. I worked practically as a family and social counsellor for over ten years and I can say that scientifically accepted methodologies, or less known and accepted methodologies, are only ever worth as much as I was able to artfully use them. Not so much a fixed strategy for each client, but rather a flexible approach to the other person, where the method is not a chore, but rather a freestyle.