Related papers: Comment on "Scientific Regress" (First Things May …
In a recent letter, Carlos Vilchez-Roman criticizes Bornmann et al. (2015) for using data which cannot be reproduced without access to an in-house version of the Web-of-Science (WoS) at the Max Planck Digital Libraries (MPDL, Munich). We…
Disagreement is essential to scientific progress. However, the extent of disagreement in science, its evolution over time, and the fields in which it happens, remains poorly understood. Leveraging a massive collection of English-language…
A comment has been recently posted on the arXiv (arXiv:1902.07504) that discuss our recent work on encircling multiple exceptional points in Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018). In that comment, the authors claim that our approach is prone to…
Letter/comment on M. Rini, Physics $\textbf{13}$, s94 (July 27, 2020) and A. Sanna et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. $\textbf{125}$, 057001 (2020).
A Reply to the criticisms contained in astro-ph/9612003 is provided and a logical inconsistency in astro-ph/9612214 is pointed out.
This report seeks to inform policy makers on the nature and the merit of the arguments for and against the concerns associated with a potential technological singularity. Part I describes the lessons learned from our investigation of the…
With the recognized crisis of credibility in scientific research, there is a growth of reproducibility studies in computer science, and although existing surveys have reviewed reproducibility from various perspectives, especially very…
This brief note in response to Wojciech Zurek's article "Quantum Darwinism, classical reality, and the randomness of quantum jumps" (Physics Today, October 2014, page 44) points out extant rebuttals in the literature to some of the author's…
This correspondence answers the criticisms raised in McGaugh et al 2018 and Kroupa et al 2018.
This paper examines the processes involved in attempting to capture the subtlest aspects of nature by the scientific method and argues on this basis that nature is fundamentally elusive and may resist grasping by the methods of science. If…
Title: An unlikely result Authors: T.M. Other Comments: This paper has been withdrawn Abstract: This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to the fact that some of the results turned out to be known.
Steven Weinberg productive scientific life teaches us many things, one of the most important of which is the power of his example. This essay contains personal reminiscences and a speculation about gravitational wave propagation based on…
We respond to a critique 2512.23460[hep-ph] of our paper 2505.05634[hep-ph]
We discuss scientific realism from the perspective of modern cosmology, especially primordial cosmology: i.e. the cosmological investigation of the very early universe. We first (Section 2) state our allegiance to scientific realism, and…
We reply to the criticisms of our publication (N. Hasegawa, K. Hagino, and Y. Tanimura, Phys. Lett. B808, 135693 (2020)) made by A. Ono in his recent article, arXiv:2201.02966.
It is shown that the various claims made in the comment by M. Ya. Azbel (physics/0403106) on the two publications Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 055502 (2003) and Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4988 (2000) are invalid. They are a result of a misinterpretation…
Scientific evaluation is a determinant of how scientists, institutions and funders behave, and as such is a key element in the making of science. In this article, we propose an alternative to the current norm of evaluating research with…
I expand on some ideas from my recent review "String theory to the rescue," I discuss my use of Bayesian reasoning. I argue that it can be useful but that it is very far from the central point of the discussion. I then review my own…
Rejoinder to "The Future of Indirect Evidence" [arXiv:1012.1161]
Did time begin at a Big Bang? Will the present expansion of the universe last for a finite or infinite time? These questions sound philosophical but are becoming, now in the twenty-first century, central to the scientific study of…