Thread for all discussion about "genuine/meaningless/fake" etc

[Stephen Carlson]

Well, Rich Santacoloma could complain that his theory is not adequately addressed, and so could Gordon Rugg. How much space should every paper reserve for addressing the possible theories that it is contradicting?
Should it try to disprove them rather than bring arguments in favour of its own topic?

It is in the end, a judgment call. Not every possible theory should be addressed, of course, but the stronger ones should not be ignored at the expense of the weaker ones, which is how I classify Rugg's.

As for Santacoluma's theory, I didn't remember it, so I found his blog and read the about page and I am still mystified as to what his theory is supposed to be. Not a promising avenue for a serious theory.

At any rate, the authors have promised on twitter to address T&S's theory in their next revision and I look forward to what they have to say.