I’m not wasting any more time with you. I have provided citation, aside from my own discussion, which supports my position. So here’s an idea, go away. You have not actually provided any argument against what I have said. You’re just a belligerent troll.

As I said, the discussion section is a section where you can include your own opinion/interpretation, even if it does not follow from the evidence in the paper itself.

Could you do me a favor and actually respond to what I have said, rather than be an arrogant shit?

All claims carry burden of proof. However, other religions tend to admit that they take their position on faith. It seems that you believe that there are no gods. This is a religious view, but you do not want to admit that you are taking your position on faith.

Yeah. I do. That’s why I have multiple degrees in fields of scientific investigation.

I know quite a bit actually. However, I have also cited other discussions on the topic, so I don’t have to rely on my own knowledge.

That’s scientism: the idea that science is superior to other ways of investigating the universe. Sorry, but science requires certain assumptions as well. Science is just one way of investigating reality. It is not the only way, or necessarily the best way.

No. That is not a problem if it being in the abstract. And since it was in the abstract, I highly doubt the reviewers missed it. They just realized that it would have been biased to reject the paper, because it was in there.

An abstract is a summary of the entire paper. That means that if it is in the discussion section, it would probably also show up in the abstract. Now, if it was not in the discussion section, or something equivalent to it, and it was only in the abstract, then I would agree. So tell me, was it only in the abstract?

> The quality of your citation is what matters.

Academia is very anti-religious, or more correctly, many academics are religious negativists. They default to belief in nonexistence, when there is no evidence. So these kind of claims contradict their own religious views.

> Expertise isn’t what’s needed to dismiss your claim. That would be the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy, but my unwillingness to “prove it” seems to be good enough justification for you to think you’ve won the argument by default.

This is a non-sequitur. It does not contradict anything that I’ve said. Could you please not waste my time with this bull shit? Thanks.

You keep saying that, but I’m the only one that has provided a citation addressing the issue. And since you are unwilling to break anonymity, you have no way of supporting your expertise.

I have not made a claim, without evidence. I actually provided a link to a discussion on the topic of, well, discussion sections in scientific papers.

> are you kidding me? A papers conclusion should follow from the evidence and research contained within that paper. A scientific research paper shouldn’t contain a section titled, ‘just spitballin’ here’

> What? A peer-reviewed paper isn’t a conference panel. It’s not a “discussion.”

Really? Go link to one.

That’s true. It would have been more inappropriate if scientific investigation had falsified god claims, but since they have not, it is not inappropriate to include the opinion, in the discussion.

Clearly you believe that there are no gods.