We need to be clear about this @Art. This is an example of Poisoning the Well executed by @Agauger (Poisoning the Well). Her reaction included several unwarranted ad homimems. Including a charge that you are intentionally misrepresenting the paper.
-
“Hunt has posted a deceptive rebuttal”
-
“Stop with the misrepresentations already. @ArtHunt You have people reading you who don’t know the material and depend on you for the truth. So don’t twist it or play word games.”
These are serious charges of intentional deception of an unknowledgeable audience. Unless @Agauger really means to accuse @Art of intentional deception, I hope she walks back those accusations. Disagreements are not deception. In this particular case too, @Art’s response seems spot on to several scientists who have read the paper. We do know the material. If he was lying, I would point it out.
@Agauger also calls @art’s response “ludicrous.” @Art’s response is not ludicrous. It is exactly how most scientists reading the paper will understand the DI’s response. If @art (and the rest of us) missed something, I want to know. It certainly is not obvious to us. Some one needs to show us what we missed.