[RuggedPineapple]

When your work is as a scientist, and you want to be judged as a scientist, your work being pseudoscience is not superficial. That's like saying pointing out your accountant is facing tax fraud charges isn't germane to his work as your accountant.

[Kevin09210]

What qualifies Loeb's work as pseudoscience (which is different from erroneous science as pointed out in the paper and blog post he reacts to) ? The thematics he chose to explore. He could have worded his paper differently, totally burying the extraterrestrial tech hypothesis he had in mind and there would have been no repercussions. Your opinion is driven by the semantics of the topic at hand and its success relies on the fact it fits into two heavily imbalanced classes. Of course I can go around and tell people they don't have that super rare disease: that doesn't mean I'm not a crank too.

Still waiting for you to delve into the details of the argument against Loeb's claims rather than using broad and easy categorization (which etymologically means accusation).

[RuggedPineapple]

No one owes you an explanation, you're not 'waiting' for anything. You approve of Loeb's crank turn of late, that's fine, but you don't get to waste the time of others on demand.

[Kevin09210]

fuck you I think Loeb is wrong, but you're just dumping your shitty easy opinion without putting forth any argument.