- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Nobel Winner Motivation TOTD
Posted on 10/12/19 at 8:17 am
Posted on 10/12/19 at 8:17 am
Posted on 10/12/19 at 8:28 am to SlowFlowPro
So it appears that Dr. used the last 26 years improving their resesrch, possibly based on the attached notes... or are we saying 27 year old research made 0 improvements?
Also room 420
Also room 420
Posted on 10/12/19 at 8:29 am to SlowFlowPro
August of 1992. That's a long time of motivation.
I'm impressed. I'd be even more if I knew whatever it was that he was motivated about
I'm impressed. I'd be even more if I knew whatever it was that he was motivated about
Posted on 10/12/19 at 8:31 am to MoarKilometers
quote:
So it appears that Dr. used the last 26 years improving their resesrch, possibly based on the attached notes... or are we saying 27 year old research made 0 improvements?
i imagine it's a bit of both. if you are a true trailblazer, which he apparently is, the paradigms and algorithms of contemporary bureaucracy will stifle you. science is a large bureaucracy who wants you to check the boxes it finds necessary while being judged by potential competition who holds the power to silence you.
Posted on 10/12/19 at 8:31 am to SlowFlowPro
Read the letter. It isn’t that they didn’t find his research probative but rather that they felt it wasn’t a good fit for their publication. He probably would have gotten the same response from Sports Illustrated.
Posted on 10/12/19 at 8:32 am to jbgleason
quote:More info?
Read the letter. It isn’t that they didn’t find his research probative but rather that they felt it wasn’t a good fit for their publication. He probably would have gotten the same response from Sports Illustrated.
Nature is a highly reputable journal, but if this was merely a medical oriented study, Scruffy agrees with you.
Posted on 10/12/19 at 8:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
science is a large bureaucracy who wants you to check the boxes it finds necessary while being judged by potential competition who holds the power to silence you.
Wait, so you're not a peer reviewed attorney? I actually saw a friend post an article a couple years back, dealing with hand washing with soap vs antibacterial soap. It was literally my 7th grade science project, from 1993, but apparently I didn't submit it for review I instantly felt slightly jaded, so I appreciate this man's drive. And for bonus points, all my findings were backed up in the 2nd study.
Short of medicine, I'm totally unaware of what this guy did... anyone want to save me from web searching and cliff note his scope of research?
Posted on 10/12/19 at 8:44 am to SlowFlowPro
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/27/21 at 11:45 pm
Posted on 10/12/19 at 9:08 am to SlowFlowPro
That Baw didn’t settled science.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News