Hacker News Reader

Comment by jared314 | Hacker News Reader

> their theories (surprise, surprise) provided support for these hand waving models

> These folk "knew" what they needed to obtain

If I hadn't seen the resemblance between the username and the first name on the linked publications, I would have closed the page and written it off as a pseudo-science blogger fighting big corporate interests. I just wish the user info page had his real name on it, for confirmation.

View on HN

There was a honking big difference between pseudo-science and this blog post, and it was right at the start. Specifically:

"So I decided to find out - and I did! "

Followed up by a link to a published scientific article. Seriously, I don't know what your complaint is. There's a nice dry scientific paper, and a blog post with a more accessible tone. This seems like a pretty good mix of the different types of media (putting aside for now the issue of the paper being behind a bloody paywall).

See my response to Dylan16807 [1], as he had a similar question.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6388337

Your reply to Jared is talking about quoting out of context. There is no quoting in this case. The guy is simply introducing the research paper that he himself wrote and got published. Seriously I have no idea what on earth you're going on about.

What sounds pseudo-science about the first main paragraph, "It turns out that...electrode."? I don't understand your reaction to some complaints about non-tested models.

After reading too many blogs trying to substantiate their claims by quoting science out of context, I never consider the first paragraph as proof of anything. The second paragraph turned from promoting an idea to almost accusing others of bias or misconduct, in a way that almost mimicked a conspiracy theory. I can understand the complaints about inadequately tested models, because that happens. (And, as there are a lot of russian language posts in the blog, perhaps it is a cultural language style I am unfamiliar with.) But, if it wasn't for the username looking similar to the name on the paper, I would have written it off.

Still, I think pseudo-science would use a quote as a springboard into something nonsensical, it wouldn't just say "these guys didn't do their job properly", it would do something like accuse them of actual conspiracy, or say that the answer was obvious because [inane blather].

"Nonsensical" and "inane blather" are relative to your personal knowledge and experience. Science and technology, to people outside of those fields, sounds like a string of nonsense jargon and technobabble. (That is one of the reasons why phys.org, university press departments, Congressman[1], and Fox News[2] can get things so very wrong.) My lack of a background in the detailed inner workings of Li-Ion batteries, or chemistry in general, prevents me from directly validating his statements. So, if it wasn't for the username looking similar to the first name on the paper, I would have written it off.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6378495

The point is that he didn't make any statement there. So you don't need any field knowledge to realize he didn't springboard into blather, because he didn't springboard into anything at all.

The fact that abstract says nothing about the results, and only complains about "established science".

I've been reading his blog for many years and can confirm that the resemblance is no coincidence and it is indeed that person.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com