Alexander Sokolov. How to distinguish a scientific book from a pseudoscientific one? Alexander Sokolov

http://vikent.ru/enc/5316/
Sokolov Alexander Borisovich

15 Signs of Pseudoscience in an Article, Book, TV Show, or Website

“Who benefits from science, and who only has a confused mind. If
Allthey'll gointo scientists and into nobles, then there is no one
will trade and sow grain. Everyone will die of hunger.

- And if everyone trades and sows grain,
then there will be no one to comprehend the teaching.

And, thinking that both of them said something convincing and weighty,
Kuzmichov and Father Christopher did
serious faces and coughed at the same time.”

A serious scientist, speaking about a hypothesis, even if supported by numerous evidence - understanding the risks of categorical statements - usually adds: “probably”, “one can assume”, “most experts agree that...”. This is good form in scientific publishing.

A false scientist, presenting his view of events that happened 1000 (or a million) years ago, describes them as confidently as if he saw everything with his own eyes...

Culture of working with sources

7) List of references at the end of a scientific article or book:

Absent altogether;

Contains only Russian-language resources;

Science is international, and leading scientific journals, alas, are published outside of Russia and in English

Does not contain sources from the last year/decade;

The situation in science is changing very quickly. A real scientist is aware of what is happening in his field today, and not half a century ago.

Quote 1: “The lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record was a source of confusion for Darwin, the generally accepted father of evolutionary theory...”

P. Budzilovich. The evolution of lies in the theory of evolution. New York, 2010

(even if you believe this statement, then an appeal to the situation in paleontology 150 years ago, when this science was just being formed, is a “powerful” argument...)

Quote 2: “Back in the middle of the 20th century, Prof. V. Zenkovsky, for example, wrote: “No less important is the collapse of the idea of ​​continuity in biology - in the problem of the development of some animal species from others.”

Alexey Ilyich Osipov, prof. Moscow Theological Academy, “The Path of Reason in Search of Truth” http://www.aosipov.ru/texts/

Quote 4: “If the author refers only to popular works, news sites, etc., this means that he is either too lazy to get to the primary sources (and laziness is not a quality that distinguishes a real scientist), or he believes everything that they write in the news, and does not know that popular authors often tend to make mistakes (and even more often - to simplify, which also does not add reliability to constructions based on such sources).”

Svetlana Burlak,

Correctly indicate the source to the nearest page ().

Wrong:

Don't refer at all...

Refer in the style: “I. Petrov wrote"; “an acquaintance told me”; “scientists have proven”...

Quote 1: “Scientists have proven an interesting fact: when the head is cold, the brain becomes thicker.”

14) Lack of specifics.

In normal scientific literature (similar to correct citation), when describing facts, it is customary to give them as specifically as possible - so that the reader can, if necessary, check the correspondence of the information to reality. This is a typical insurance against the risks of scientific error.

For example, if an archaeological find is indicated, in normal literature it is customary to indicate the exact location of the find, its author and catalog number.

If the characteristics of an animal - modern or extinct - are described, the specific Latin species name must be indicated.

Quote: The less understanding a person has about a subject, the more general concepts he tends to operate with. For example, he appeals to the “local dialect of representatives of indigenous African peoples” - without bothering to find out that there are many more than one and a half thousand languages ​​in Africa. Or he says that “in animals, communication is limited to the manifestation of emotions” - without in any way specifying either referential warning systems about danger (like in vervet monkeys, which distinguish between calls to an eagle, a leopard and a snake), or remote guidance systems, like in bees or ants. Anyone who has taken the trouble to understand the subject in detail simply cannot say “primitive man” - he will definitely want to clarify whether it was Neanderthal , or habilis , or anyone else (or even name specific remains by inventory designation), they are so different, it is not so easy to choose a feature that would characterize them all equally.

Svetlana Burlak,"The origin and evolution of language: science and pseudoscience say it differently"

15) Failure to mention alternative hypotheses. The author discusses his hypothesis, Not comparing it with other approaches to the problem (often without even knowing about them), in extreme cases, briefly mentioning it (as if brushing it aside). (Option: the author chooses the weakest one among many hypotheses - and easily deals with it to the applause of the ignorant public...)

But what is important is not only that the explanation seems logical - it must be better, more accurate than other existing versions - for example, consistent with more facts.

Conclusions:

2. Pseudoscientists are a motley crowd. Among them are outright crazy people, swindlers, overplayed show business figures, and, alas, degraded real scientists. (By the way, of this bunch, ordinary psychos seem to be the least dangerous, since they are at least the easiest to recognize...) Understanding the details of the motivations of these people is a thankless time. It’s more important to take care of your head... Perhaps the materials given in the material will help you with this 15 signs.

3. There are exceptions to any rule. Eccentricities and oddities are also found among real scientists. A scientist is a living person who can make mistakes and is not free from prejudices. Therefore, one single sign from the above list is by no means a death sentence. But the more signs “meet together” in the article, book, TV show, etc. you are analyzing. - the more reasons for concern.

4. God forbid you fall under the influence of a pseudo-scientist, especially at a tender young age...

Myths and pseudoscientific misconceptions will live as long as humanity exists, but this is not a reason to give up. We cannot completely eradicate pseudoscience, but we can force the marginalized to take a few steps back. Well-known scientific journalist Alexander Sokolov will tell you what ways to counter pseudoscience there are and which he considers pointless and even harmful.

The following issues are discussed:

1. What should you do to help your friends “come to their senses” and buy effective medications?
2. What actions against pseudoscience have exhausted themselves and are simply wasting our time?
3. What should be done to encourage young people to go into science?
4. How can each of us help the development of science in the country?

Alexander Sokolov, scientific journalist, popularizer of science, creator and permanent editor of the portal ANTHROPOGENES.RU, author of the books “Myths about Human Evolution” and “Are Scientists Hiding? Myths of the 21st Century.

Comments: 0

Alexander Sokolov

When faced with a person defending pseudoscientific ideas, some will remain silent, while others will furiously rush into battle. Down and feathers are flying, the number of debaters is growing, passions are heating up. If you get involved in a dispute, then how and for what? Is it possible to convince your opponent, and is it necessary? And what techniques should you use? In what cases is discussion pointless, and what benefit can we ourselves derive from it?

Scientific journalist, teacher, editor of the Internet portal Anthropogenesis.ru, dedicated to human evolution, Alexander Sokolov, visiting the show “Park of Culture and Leisure”.

Kruglyakov E. P.

Alexander Sokolov

How do historians study the past? Can chroniclers be trusted? How to distinguish a genuine historical document from a fake? Who won the Battle of Kadesh? Is it true that the Atlanteans erected the Alexandria Column in St. Petersburg?

Richard Dawkins

Enemies of Reason is a two-part documentary ("Slaves of Superstition" and "The Irrational Health Service") about superstition and irrationalism. Host and screenwriter Richard Dawkins examines the validity of astrology, dowsing, homeopathy and other scientifically unproven practices, and speculates about the reasons for their popularity. Includes interviews with Deepak Chopra and Derren Brown, among others.

On September 29, 2015, a seminar “Science and pseudoscience in the media: modern challenges” was held at the Central House of Journalists, organized by the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, the Union of Journalists of Russia and the Union of Journalists of the Moscow Region. Journalists and editors of Moscow region media, together with the expert community, discussed ways to popularize scientific knowledge in the modern world, technologies for identifying pseudoscientific information, and methods of countering the falsification of science.

Alexander Sergeev

Lecture by a member of the commission to combat pseudoscience of the Russian Academy of Sciences, scientific journalist, coordinator of the Club of Scientific Journalists Alexander Genrikhovich Sergeev on the topic “Memetic epidemic of pseudoscience and mass communications: causes, diagnosis, threats and difficulties of countering” Memorial Museum-Apartment of F.I. Shalyapin, St. Petersburg, April 23, 2015

Anna Urmantseva, Vladimir Porus, Alexey Semikhatov

On the verge of madness

We turn on the TV and here they are, our favorite topics of pseudo-scientific journalism - the end of the world, charged water or the wonders of extrasensory perception! I want to have a good laugh at all this. But hasn't it all gone too far already? Why are more and more viewers starting to believe in deception on television? Take it and introduce strict censorship into the media. But what then about freedom of speech? And how can we separate true science from pseudoscience? The host of the program, Alexey Semikhatov, asked these questions to the guests of the program - scientific observer Anna Urmantseva and Doctor of Philosophy, Vladimir Porus.

TEFI, the Russian national television award for the highest achievements in the field of television arts, established by the Academy of Russian Television Foundation, has been organized since 2014 by the non-profit partnership “Committee of Industrial Television Awards”.

The Great Mystery of Water, pseudoscientific film by the Rossiya TV channel.

TV channel Culture, Russian state TV channel, part of VGTRK.

REN TV, Russian federal television channel.

Alderaan, a fictional planet in the Star Wars universe, is a tranquil utopian world that was once the spiritual heart of the Galaxy.

NASA, an agency of the US federal government that reports directly to the Vice President of the United States.

Invisibility cloak

Scientific or funny?

A certain Ulf Leonhardt was going to make an invisibility cloak, and it became a little funny. I understand that the crisis is not a hindrance to talent, but it is impossible to implement this project with $160 thousand. Secondly, Ulf promises to do this in 2 years, while his colleagues from the USA have been working on this problem since 2000. In fact, this study looks like a fraud. Most likely, Ulf planned to get more money for this research, but, as we see, he received pennies. Now he will have to come up with fake research reports for his sponsors for 2 years so that they do not take away the money in the first stages of this, as it were, research. So, let's wish Ulf good luck in this difficult matter - hanging noodles on his ears based on the theory of curved space by Albert Einstein.

Created an invisibility cloak

This is the first version of the invisibility cloak that works in the visible light range. It looks like H.G. Wells' fantasies are starting to come true. The idea of ​​creating a device similar to a fairy tale hat or invisibility cloak arose quite a long time ago.

However, only at the beginning of this century it received serious theoretical justification from physicists studying the optical properties of various materials. When these ideas began to be put into practice, “unplanned” difficulties immediately arose.

In general, the honorary “parent” of the modern version of the invisibility cloak is the British physicist Sir John Pendry, from Imperial College London (by the way, he was awarded a knighthood precisely for these developments). He built a model according to which the structure that makes the object underneath invisible should consist of so-called metamaterials. This term refers to substances created by man, the properties of which are determined not so much by the individual physical characteristics of their components, but by the microstructure of the latter. This term is especially often used in relation to those composites that exhibit properties that are not characteristic of objects found in nature.

Using calculations by American scientists Andrea Alou and Nader Ingete from the University of Pennsylvania (USA), Pendry suggested that this quality should be present in such metamaterials, which include both an electrical conductor (metal) and a dielectric. He proceeded from a well-known fact: at the boundary of two media, any waves can either be reflected or refracted, and inside the medium they can be absorbed or pass through it.

The scientist considered this option - suppose we have an ideal spherical conductor surrounded by a dielectric layer with zero absorption. In this case, if the dielectric constant of the outer layer is less than unity or even negative, then the optical size of the entire structure will decrease, that is, it will not only become invisible to an outside observer, but will also hide the object underneath it from his view.

The only thing left to do was to create a similar metamaterial that would be both a conductor and an insulator. In 2006, this problem seemed to have been solved and the idea was brought to life in the form of a structure consisting of a transparent insulator (like glass), into which tiny metal filings were evenly interspersed. Since that time, experiments began on creating an invisibility cloak based on this material.

However, here scientists were in for some disappointment, since the device really carefully masked the object, making it completely invisible, but... only in the infrared range. In that part of the spectrum called the region of visible light (in fact, it serves as a carrier of information for us), this invisibility cap refused to work. For a long time, physicists did not understand why this happens. And recently, it seems, this riddle has been solved and, at the same time, a fundamentally new version of the cloaking device has been proposed.

Professor Elena Semushkina from the University of Michigan (USA) and her colleague Xiang Zhang, after a series of studies, came to the conclusion that it’s all about the metal component. It is its structure (and, as we remember, the structure of a metal can be represented in the form of a lattice, at the nodes of which ions sit, and electrons drift freely between them) that does not allow light waves to be reflected in the desired direction, that is, as if bypassing the surface, so that the refracted the wave smoothly flowed around this cloak, and did not reflect from it at an angle visible to the observer, and did not absorb it.

Based on this assumption, scientists decided to turn to another type of metamaterials, which consist entirely of dielectrics. Their attention was attracted by the work of a group of physicists from Birmingham, who believed that so-called uniaxial crystals should become the “fabric” for invisibility cloaks. Let me remind you that this term refers to structures that are characterized by birefringence in all directions of light incident on them except one (this direction is called the optical axis of the crystal).

Simply put, such a crystal, if a beam of light hits it, splits it into two constituent beams of light, which propagate at different speeds and are polarized in two mutually perpendicular planes. That is, it turns out exactly what is needed - the light is directed around the coating and makes it and the object it masks invisible to the observer.

In the end, physicists managed to create a material with a variable refractive index, which was a uniaxial crystal of silicon nitride, which was placed on a transparent nanoporous substrate of the same silicon oxide. The latter had a lower refractive index than the external crystal element, called a waveguide. Then the scientists made a series of nanometer-diameter holes in a silicon nitride crystal. This is what allowed this material to acquire the properties of an invisibility cloak. The result is a device that is a smooth optical mirror that completely hides an object in the visible wavelength range (that is, a three-dimensional invisibility cloak). Experiments have shown that even now this cloak can effectively hide from the observer’s eyes quite large (from the point of view of a physicist, of course) objects, the size of which ranges from 300 nm to 6 microns. But, according to scientists, this is not the limit at all.

“Our protective coating works as follows: if an object is covered with a special material that looks like an ordinary mirror, then the object itself located below will not be visible through it. An external observer does not even assume that there is something under the mirror,” one of the study’s authors, Professor Xiang Zhang, commented on the results of the work on the pages of PhysOrg. He also emphasized that this invisibility cloak is only one representative of a group of devices that can be created using these metamaterials. According to him, in the future, on this basis, it is possible to develop devices that create other optical illusions. For example, “mirages”, that is, images that do not correspond to the real appearance of the object or are not located in the place where the object itself is located.

Well, in the meantime, scientists are planning to improve their invisibility cloak and ensure that larger objects can be hidden under it. I am sure that they will succeed - it is not for nothing that they say that if a Russian unites with a Chinese, then together they can move mountains. Or at least create an invisibility cap. True, provided that the Americans finance their work...

1. 1. Science and pseudoscience in modern Russia Alexander Sokolov ANTHROPOGENES.RU HTTP://ANTROPOGENEZ.RU
2. 2. Why does pseudoscience exist?     Science is very complex, “far” from the people. We need a quickly digestible surrogate... A particular specialist is strong in one area, but weak in others... The variety of scientific facts is so great that by selecting facts and taking them out of context, it is not difficult to create the appearance of justification for any fantasy. the situation is aggravated by the fall in the level of education... to speak essentially, then at the time that the dear Darwin considers the emergence of human intelligence, cultural life was in full swing in Atlantis!!! So think about it: is Darwin smart or not?
3. 3. Maybe there is no need to fight pseudoscience?     Let them make mistakes, but they draw attention to science! And he is not a scientist, he is a journalist (satirist, writer, ...). He doesn’t enlighten, but... And who are the judges? who decides this, who is a scientist, who is a pseudoscientist? Today he is a pseudoscientist, and tomorrow... There are different points of view, let's live together... “The viewer will figure it out!”
4. 4. So, pseudoscience:    misleads people; undermines the authority of real science, discredits it, including in the eyes of the younger generation; in some cases it causes material damage to society.
5. 5. Particularly loved by pseudoscientists:    history, archeology, anthropology, linguistics... topics that directly or indirectly touch national, political, religious chords... Some personalities: Stalin, Hitler, Einstein, Tesla...
6. 6. 1. Cover
7. 7. 2. Title / subtitle There are words:  Sensational / secret / secret / hidden / forbidden / forbidden / curse Forbidden history Stolen history Forbidden truth about the USSR Forbidden truth about Russians Forbidden magic of the ancients Hidden history of the human race Secret history of NASA Secret protocols, or Who forged the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Red Frankenstein: Secret experiments of the Kremlin Secret civilization of the Moon Tesla and the lost secrets of Nazi technology Secret CIA instructions Secret Antarctica And even “The Secret History of the Buryats”
8. 8. 2. Title / subtitle The words appear:  Sensational / secret / secret / hidden / forbidden / forbidden / curse Sensational theory of reality Sensational history of the Earth Sensational historical revelations Curse of the Egyptian pharaohs Curse of Tutankhamun Saddam Hussein: posthumous curse
9. 9. 2. Title / subtitle  Formula: “Some incomprehensible nonsense of the ancients” “Secret knowledge of the ancients.” “Secret technologies of the ancients” “All the secrets of antiquity” “Tragic message of the ancients”  Something from the school textbook is being refuted: “There was no yoke! Intellectual sabotage of the West" "Darwin is wrong" "Kievan Rus did not exist, or what historians are hiding" "History is wrong" "400 years of deception"
10. 10. 2. Title / subtitle   “If the words appear: aura, biofield, chakra, bioenergy, panacea, energy information, resonance wave, psychic energy, thought form, telegony, wave genetics, wave genome, supersensible, astral, then you can be sure that you are dealing with charlatan writings”... Arkady Golod, “Science and Life”, No. 3, 2009 Hyperborea, Atlantis, UFOs, parapsychology...
11. 11. 3. Author   Blacklist: Fomenko, Zadornov, Muldashev, Chudinov, ... Strange regalia: Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, New York Academy of Sciences... Researcher of ancient civilizations...
12. 12. 3. Author  Academic degree in another field   Ph.D. about history... Archaeologist, candidate of philosophical sciences... No information... Other works by this author - a strange choice of topics Code of Life. The Tale of Pushkin's Golden Cockerel. Dialectical principles of anthropoevolution. Archeology of man. Origin of body, mind, language. Ra. Indian way of the northern god. Pushkin's last case.
13. 13. 4. Contents Families of people  Chapter 1. Phylogeny and ontogeny  Chapter 2. Terrestrial diversity  Chapter 3. Giants  Chapter 4. Cosmic diversity  Chapter 5. Aliens  Chapter 6. Reptoids  Chapter 7. Chiroptera people  Chapter 8 . Horned people  Chapter 9. Fly people  Chapter 10. Cyclops  Chapter 11. Pigty  Chapter 12. Councils 12. Chapter 13. Four -fingered  Chapter 14. Dog -headed  Chapter 15. Water people  Chapter 16. Nords  Chapter 17. Development of Cro-Magnons  Chapter 18. Ancient Russians  Chapter 19. Modern humanity  Chapter 20. The future
14. 14. 5. Abstract The author defines his work as revolutionary, promises a revolution in science. The author uses the expressions: “official science”, “official paradigm” Claims to the scientific community.    “Conspiracy of scientists” “Hushing up” “Destruction of objectionable evidence” “Scientists are hiding!!!” “The book includes a presentation in modern language of Forty-two articles by leading experts on the mysteries of the history of ancient worldviews and discoveries, positions, and paranormal phenomena. Philosophical facts stubbornly hidden from humanity, and their comparison hushed up by official science. Sensational with existing ones." documentary evidence of the influence of aliens from outer space on the most mysterious civilizations of antiquity... This sensational book sheds light on the most mysterious and forbidden pages of the history of the 20th century.
15. 15. 6. List of references      absent at all contains only Russian-language resources does not contain sources of the last decade not scientific works predominate, but popular books, fiction, news sites, articles from the Internet and other “non-authoritative sources” contains sources from “ Blacklist" Alexandr Guryan. EVOLUTION OF MATTER or UNIFIED THEORY OF GRAVITY “Every person should be chipped, and this is fair.” Barack Obama (translation - REN-TV, “Military Secret”, November 11, 2013) In the original: ““Everybody’s gonna have to chip in. It’s only fair.” chip in - enter into a share, chip in...
16. 16. 6. List of references “The proposed book refers to alternative history. The author tried to show a logical picture of the history of the Slavs and the Russian nation as opposed to the official history of Rus' (more precisely, the history of the princes, starting with the well-known Rurik), which many modern scientists, not without reason, consider false... Out of a natural desire to study the available materials on the history of the Slavs, By systematizing the information obtained from publications on the Internet and publicly available literature, a book was born that is read with exciting interest and is intended for the widest range of readers.” "From Hyperborea to Rus'", German Markov
17. 17. 7. Acknowledgments   Thanks characters from The Blacklist... Thanks no one!
18. 18. 8. Reviews, reviews    Non-specialists Characters from the “Black List” “Late Celebrities”... Before me is not just a book... but a huge long-term historical work, a valuable contribution to the streamlining of Russian historiography, which for many decades and even hundreds has been making mistakes for years and continues to make mistakes, rejecting the latest research by amateur historians, archaeologists, geologists, geographers, people who are not indifferent to creating the true history of the Slavs, Rus', Russia. However, at the suggestion of eminent academicians, school history textbooks before Natalya Petrovna are still replete with errors... with Bekhterev's words: “I read the book by V. Ten “... From the foam of the sea.” I had a feeling from N.E. Komaristy, a member of the Northern Writers' Union, that I missed this book, that I was waiting for it - and got it... a brilliant book.”
19. 19. 9. Publisher... Lynn R. Racial differences in intelligence. Evolutionary analysis Publishing house "Profit Style" On the publishing house's website - book announcements: The science of hand reading Spiral of fate Basics of palmistry Layouts and experience in interpreting Tarot Synastric astrology
20. 20. Simple and complex cases
21. 21. 10. Contents  Non-specific references “one very famous biologist said”… “it has long been known that…” “scientists have proven…” lack of references “Scientists have proven an interesting fact: when the head is cold, the brain becomes thicker.” M. Zadornov // 1tv.ru. “Gordon Quixote”, 09.19.2008 Correct: William Irwin. Darwin and Huxley. M., “Young Guard”, 1973, p. 289.
22. 22. 10. Contents  Vagueness in the description of the facts “animals”, “monkeys”, “Africans”, “fish”, “Stone Age”... Incorrect: Correct: a skull was found in East Africa... In Ethiopia, in the area of ​​Lake Turkana, in 1972 the skull KNM-ER 1470 was found
23. 23. 10. Contents  Using arguments “from politics”, “from religion”, from “national interests”   “Rusanthropus, - a representative of the most ancient fossil people. Rusanthropes existed in the period 700 - 50 thousand years ago. The Rusantrops were replaced by Russian-plain species of paleoanthropes, and from the 50th millennium paleorus (a new type of person, neoanthrope).” A.A. Tyunyaev Electronic Slavic Encyclopedia Disrespectful attitude towards opponents and their hypotheses   Opponents are ridiculed, their hypotheses are reduced to the point of absurdity. “Everyone is a fool” “Policy with a stupid opponent”
24. 24. 10. Contents  Using primitive “childish” logic AB => BA The dolphin is an aquatic animal and has no hair. A person has no hair, which means...?
25. 25. 10. Contents  Instead of facts, the author argues for his constructions with opinions, statements, and eyewitness accounts. At the same conference, I found an Indian doctor who had all the signs of the Tibetan race. - In appearance, you are a native representative of the North Indians. Did your ancestors also come to Indian territory from somewhere? “We have always lived here,” the doctor answered. “He’s really right,” I thought, “Tibet and northern India border each other.” (E. Muldashev. From whom did we come?)  Increased emotionality, appeal to feelings rather than to reason; intimidation of the reader... Comrade scientists, nature is simple and even primitive, it does not “The sinister teaching of the last century, which dark quantum physicists need to explain, nor that man is simply a developed animal, theories of relativity. No matter can occur in it or cause incredible harm. Racism, economic imperialism, communism, Nazism, sexual gravitational collapse, nor accretion, because these are analogues of perversion and debauchery, militant militarism, infanticide, pulling oneself up by the hair. genocide and other evils were supported in every possible way by one group or another. You can’t even imagine what a soap bubble you are of people who claimed that since their views are based on Quantum, you are inflating them by looking for non-existent Higgs bosons. evolution, then - this is a “scientific” tumor on the body of science and it eats away at it, like physics they are cancerous and, therefore, will definitely lead to positive iron. (Alexandr Guryan. Evolution of matter) rust results.” (Henry Morris. Biblical foundations of modern science. St. Petersburg, "The Bible for Everyone", 1995, pp. 400-401.)
26. 26. 11. Reaction to criticism A real scientist thanks for constructive criticism. For a pseudoscientist, a critic is a personal enemy. False scientist:        accuses opponents of amateurism (and their academic degrees were bought) accuses opponents of having sold out (to capitalists, freemasons, authorities, ...) accuses opponents of being “simply jealous”, taking revenge him, etc. promises to find errors in the opponents themselves; selects the least important among the opponents’ comments and focuses on it, while ignoring others; declares that all this “minor quibbling about commas” makes fun of the opponent’s surname, nationality, features of appearance, etc.
27. 27. Conclusions Take care of your head!   There are exceptions to any rule.. But the more signs “met together”, the more reasons for alarm.  Our criticism: anthropogenez.ru/criticism/  We recommend the section on pseudoscience (40 materials): http://vikent.ru/enc-list/category/400/ March 15 “Mechanisms of the collapse of creative teams” 