The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
I can't believe you didn't read the first paragraphI can't believe this got published, the author must be trolling :
"One important aspect of the benefits of smoking is they appear to be dose-dependent and may not develop until many years after initiation of treatment. With this in mind, smoking should be commenced at as young an age as is reasonably possible. Children who have not yet developed a pincer grasp might require modified cigarette holders, safety lighters or both. "
if research results are selectively chosen, a review has the potential to create a convincing argument for a faulty hypothesis. Improper correlation or extrapolation of data can result in dangerously flawed conclusions. The following paper seeks to illustrate this point
Did Alan Sokal's paper, Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity, deserve to be published?Confirming that the author is trolling and that it doesn't deserve to be published
No: confirming that he is, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, bringing attention to the dangers of tailoring data to suit a conclusion, rather than drawing a conclusion from data.Confirming that the author is trolling and that it doesn't deserve to be published
Again, I repeat the Sokol question: are you of the view that 'Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' should not have been published?if the date of publication of the article were April 1st (April Fool's Day joke) and the journal had a tradition of doing that every April, it would be more acceptable - seriously, why was this published?
Again, I repeat the Sokol question: are you of the view that 'Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' should not have been published?
Xenon was en vogue at that time too, wasn't it? About six years ago?Actually, we had a discussion here a few years ago about the PE effects of carbon monoxide, which of course increases in the system when smoking.
It's a good way of making a point, proving the problem by exploiting it.That was a classic. It was powerful precisely because it was not presented as a joke or parody. Some people took it seriously, which just underscored the author's point.