Isn't it also lacking critical thinking to say these terms without any further specification where was it unscientific in the study?

But you know, even every medicine you take could use a method that is “unscientific”

theyprobably say where somewhere

Nowhere do they provide further specifications on these terms.

Also if you think someones paper is just junk and stupid i bet you wouldnt have the time to point out where

too much to write down

I'm talking for the anti-vaxxer paper, they labeled it those things but didn't provide any further explanation, that's very lacking of critical thinking if you agree with those terms.

Hypocritical

how

If I said you were mentally retarded and I had no further specifications or explanations as to why you were mentally retarded, would you believe me? Same thing they are doing with the anti-vaxxer paper, they are calling it all these labels with no explanations nor any further specifications as to why they are these terms. You are lacking of critical thinking because you actually agreed with those terms when they didn't specify where in the paper there were ''procedural errors, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, and ethical violations''.

Ehhh

So ehh what did I miss

they said there reasons
not the explanation

you can look at the paper itself and see the reasons

procedural errors, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, and ethical violations are not reasons, i thought u were a believer in the scientific procedure?

noyt everyone is going to explain the reasons for every action they take

they didn't say anywhere in the paper where those terms would apply, that's as if i said all globetards are retarded and told you '' figure it out yourself ''

@Σ5 just stop. It's not even worth it.

your expecting a scientific paper to assess a scientific paper
eventually you will get infinite papers

https://youtu.be/OmoL8LlQwWQ

@Σ5 You agree that if someone is gonna come with a label on your paper that you made, you would expect some evidence behind it with direct quotes or procedures that you took? Nope, not one evidence of it. All they did it was call it those terms with no further backing.

it was most likely a vote not a single person decision

Appeal to authority is very hypocritical. Who cares what a person labels it as, what cares is the evidence as to why they label it as it.

But you seem to care about the labels more than the evidence which they never presented.

never endorced apeal to authority

'' A bunch of people said those terms therefore those terms are correct '' is pretty much appeal to authority.

they need a way to systamaticly clasify the papers
they need to lable it to be more efficient

Better to be immune to a series of deadly illnesses than having some adjuvants in your body

thats apeal to popularity

wich is ok if you know how the people do the process

I thought you were talking about the doctors that took the vote which would be appeal to authority.

you cant be absolutly sure but sure enugh

i am

All I'm asking is for you to present evidence behind to those terms and not just take it up because some authority said it so. Critical thinking is very much needed today for this kind of stuff.

im just saying whats possible

That's fair, don't you think they should present the evidence when labeling the paper those terms? Wouldn't it be unjust for the anti-vaxxer doctor to get his license revoked and paper falsified with no further evidence?

they should

at least an attached explanation
a rundown at least

they might

but i need to see the website

That's what I thought too, but I never saw anything else. https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/