| > Strong language doesn't usually correlate with qualification. I never asserted the converse. Pointing out that strong, biased language can be associated with expertise and therefore in isolation has no bearing on truth, isn't the same as saying that strong, biased language is always associated with expertise. In fact I just argued that strong, biased language associated with ignorance is generally bad, and is much worse than biased language coming from experts. > They sprouted the same harsh tone badmouthing video streaming a couple of days ago. Depending on what they were saying, I might agree with them that they have a point, that statement is rather vague. The video streaming of LK-99 synthesis turned out to be not very useful or enlightening in the end. It settled nothing and created a spectacle--people felt more informed that they could watch it, but at the end of the day they weren't better informed. The preprint from ICQM looks fairly definitive. But do they claim to be an expert in video streaming? Probably not. Which means how you view their opinions on the two different subjects -- video streaming and superconductivity -- can and should be different. |