/sci/ - Science & Math

The report exonerated Cairns of any wrongdoing, noting that he had no involvement in producing the figure in question and wasn’t aware that Schmidt had fabricated and falsified the image.

But Toth isn’t satisfied. He said Cairns deserves some blame and that clearing him of wrongdoing is “completely irresponsible”.

Cairns declined to comment, citing confidentiality agreements. Wittenmyer and de Grijs also declined to comment on their report, citing confidentiality.

Toth has claimed nobody in the community believes the results described in Schmidt and Cairns’ other papers.

In a rebuttal he published on another of Schmidt and Cairns’ preprints last month, Toth wrote the results were so outlandish they had “only one reasonable explanation”: that they “were most likely not obtained by reproducible numerical simulations.” Previous papers by the duo using the same technique are “similarly questionable,” Toth wrote.

“It also seems likely that several published papers with questionable content have slipped through the peer review process,” Toth continued. “Readers and reviewers who only rely on the manuscript and published papers may or may not be able to distinguish genuine science from the type of content presented by [Schmidt and Cairns].”

The report exonerated Cairns of any wrongdoing, noting that he had no involvement in producing the figure in question and wasn’t aware that Schmidt had fabricated and falsified the image.

But Toth isn’t satisfied. He said Cairns deserves some blame and that clearing him of wrongdoing is “completely irresponsible”.

Cairns declined to comment, citing confidentiality agreements. Wittenmyer and de Grijs also declined to comment on their report, citing confidentiality.

Toth has claimed nobody in the community believes the results described in Schmidt and Cairns’ other papers.

In a rebuttal he published on another of Schmidt and Cairns’ preprints last month, Toth wrote the results were so outlandish they had “only one reasonable explanation”: that they “were most likely not obtained by reproducible numerical simulations.” Previous papers by the duo using the same technique are “similarly questionable,” Toth wrote.

“It also seems likely that several published papers with questionable content have slipped through the peer review process,” Toth continued. “Readers and reviewers who only rely on the manuscript and published papers may or may not be able to distinguish genuine science from the type of content presented by [Schmidt and Cairns].”

>>12220108
humans do the same, we move our genetically info into new juvenile cells then shed our old useless body with time, thus living forever

its basically the same shit, a jelly does

>>12157414
>Event Horizon

Is Vsauce considered popsci? He gets into some pretty complex science and math subjects.

Why should I feel bad about watching his content?

>>12117484