Thomas Clarke <tclarke@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
news:6d744b161b1785aa74e6b4cc9e568c52.128340@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > Thomas Clarke <tclarke@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
>
> regarding
> http://mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
> ..............
> > > The information in the article rings true to me,
> > > but not to you.
>
> > #3.  Does "rings true" mean that you "believe" that Einstein was first
> > to "solve" the NNPA?
>
> No.
>
> > Does "ring true" the criterion for valid scientific
> > critique?
>
> It sounds like the way real science is conducted by real people.

If you define "science" by what brown-nosing grant-chasers in academia do,
I concur.  But it in no way resembles the scientific method.

> What do you think constitutes a valid scientific critique?

One that conforms to the scientific method.  (Avoid ad hominem attacks,
character assassination, straw men, and the rest of the panopaly of
pseudo-science.)