<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Five rules for good science (and how they can help you spot bad science)	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.spencergreenberg.com/2023/09/five-rules-for-good-science-and-how-they-can-help-you-spot-bad-science/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.spencergreenberg.com/2023/09/five-rules-for-good-science-and-how-they-can-help-you-spot-bad-science/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:52:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: David Harold Chester		</title>
		<link>https://www.spencergreenberg.com/2023/09/five-rules-for-good-science-and-how-they-can-help-you-spot-bad-science/#comment-37286</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Harold Chester]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 06:38:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.spencergreenberg.com/?p=3621#comment-37286</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[For an organization which specializes in clear thinking, the recent essay about identifying bad science is so full of poor analogies and crude expressions that it is not at all clear in the sensible meanings of its claimed ideal! After becoming aware of a phenomena, a good scientist will then construct an hypothesis to explain it, &quot;in the most simple form providing it is not oversimplified.&quot; (This criterion was provided by Prof Albert Einstein in 1936, derived from Occam&#039;s Razor.)  Good science starts from clear thinking and straight direct expressions without using any superlative to color the thinking process.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For an organization which specializes in clear thinking, the recent essay about identifying bad science is so full of poor analogies and crude expressions that it is not at all clear in the sensible meanings of its claimed ideal! After becoming aware of a phenomena, a good scientist will then construct an hypothesis to explain it, &#8220;in the most simple form providing it is not oversimplified.&#8221; (This criterion was provided by Prof Albert Einstein in 1936, derived from Occam&#8217;s Razor.)  Good science starts from clear thinking and straight direct expressions without using any superlative to color the thinking process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
