Talk:Randell Mills
|
This Pseudoscience related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
This doesn't make sense even in its own terms!! "Mills attacks the straw man of quantum woo" - Quantum Woo is the misuse of Quantum Mechanical terms along with hand waving nonsense to justify some position. If it is being used as a straw man, that means it has been made easier to attack - and in this case it is appropriate to attack it. So this quote means that Mills is doing the right thing! Also, this is a remarkably narrow minded account of Mills, and a sad example of cherry picked quotes from decades ago. Where are the more recent comments on his work, and any mention of the 100+ respectable, peer reviewed articles he and his team have published. This article makes it sound like he's a lone crank rather than the head of a multi-million dollar business. Last, the word 'bilked' implies he has defrauded investors, yet none of his investors are complaining, and if you look at the members of his board of directors you see an unexpectedly impressive array of names. So this is a pretty feeble piece of work IMHO. 49.199.88.41 (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's an argument by popularity. Besides, I don't expect business people to be experts in quantum mechanics. Nerd (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps your comprehension skills are limited, or maybe you didn't read my comment very carefully, or maybe you share the intellectual values of the author(s) of the article. Who knows. But a) I spelled out a clear argument demonstrating the contradiction inherent to the line of 'reasoning' in the article. I did not appeal to populism; b) the accusation of populism is actually better directed at the article per the dated cherry picked quotes; c) the wanton ignoring of peer reviewed materials belies remarkable bias; d) the acumen of the board of directors was not raised as evidence of support for Mills' theory, but as evidence of support of his business practices. So your response is as feeble as the article IMHO. 49.183.55.174 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Did you mention peer-reviewed responses to his work? Here are some. Like I said, those investors may have great business acumen, but that does not make them physics experts. Nerd (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- What a fascinating inability to follow a simple argument! Let's step through this a little more slowly. Are you now saying that he has bilked all of those investors and board members with "great business acumen"? That would be rather contradictory, wouldn't it? They can't have great business acumen if they can be bilked by a single con-artist, can they? Or is the 'bilking' claim in the article less reasonable/accurate than is warranted? 49.184.140.198 (talk)
- Did you mention peer-reviewed responses to his work? Here are some. Like I said, those investors may have great business acumen, but that does not make them physics experts. Nerd (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps your comprehension skills are limited, or maybe you didn't read my comment very carefully, or maybe you share the intellectual values of the author(s) of the article. Who knows. But a) I spelled out a clear argument demonstrating the contradiction inherent to the line of 'reasoning' in the article. I did not appeal to populism; b) the accusation of populism is actually better directed at the article per the dated cherry picked quotes; c) the wanton ignoring of peer reviewed materials belies remarkable bias; d) the acumen of the board of directors was not raised as evidence of support for Mills' theory, but as evidence of support of his business practices. So your response is as feeble as the article IMHO. 49.183.55.174 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)