What does /sci/ think of this?
>pic related
http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf
written by an edgy spergmaster, but fundamentally has a point. It heavily relies on the definition of 'bullshit' from an outside source, yet the problem with a word such as that is that it's definition can change and has changed.
it also tries to use common features in scientific articles, and use of 'big' words to masquerade as anything other than an opinionpiece.
>>7697363
>>7697363
How about actually read it instead of just peeking at the abstract?
>>7697421
He is probably a brainlet with a low verbal IQ
My algorithm for the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit is going off the charts.
>>7697459
well memed
now what do you really think?
>>7697354
No one wants to comment on an actual paper?
But every general relativity/ FTL bait will get replies?
/sci/ truly is full of plebs
>>7697446
>brainlet
is this a new meme
>s familiarity with Deepak Chopra may limit the usefulness of the scale. Chopra has a distinct style and it is possible that prior knowledge may have confounded our bullshit measure. For example, it may have helped some people detect the bullshit.
Hahaha yessss
Best paper I've read today, OP
>>7697465
I really think that the hypocrisy is tangible in this and that it's not worth my time. Am I supposed to read this bullshit because it's published or because you want me to? Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling.
