This is how books were written 100 years ago, you had to spend like the first third explaining why everyone else is wrong before getting to the part where you claim to be right.
I initially didn't do enough of that in my PhD thesis (CS, about some weird non-frame-based imaging tech that is still only of academic interest), and my committee demanded I add more stake-claiming favorable comparisons to other tech to my introduction before I submitted.
Do we not do that anymore?
Quacks still do, the rest doesn't
Some argue vaccines have benefits. What they fail to admit, however,
Hoofta.
Not that I need to tell anybody here, but if there's an arena with bigger egos than politics, it's academia. I'd pay money just to watch the carnage.
At least in academia they deserve it.
You have no idea.
Could someone do a dissertation about exactly that?
"Your Thesis Is Wrong and You Should Feel Bad: On Cherry-Picking and the Reproducibility Crisis in Academic Research"
I want to see that so much
I'll make my thesis about the methodology issues in that one!
I wouldn't have it any other way!
Attack the judges, jury, and executioners? Bold strategy, Cotton.
The trump method
To be fair, Trump does have a rabid base.
Earn bonus points with the phrase “your reach exceeds your grasp”
Fucking hell, didn't expect that one, sending this to my advisor
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
