Is quantum tunneling in biology still an active research area?

  • Level: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sophiecentaur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Edge Life
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
31 replies · 8K views
PeterDonis said:
But the fact that a journal is not a fringe journal does not automatically mean that all cites from that journal are acceptable sources for all discussions. Being from a non-fringe journal is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

My concern was that the word "unsuitable" applied to a reference is either ambiguous, depending on context; or else pejorative; if the latter, this might imply that a comment making use of such a reference has violated forum rules. So we are talking not merely about a source but about whether citing that source is a permissible behavior, with "not permissable" potentially leading to moderation. The other way to use "unsuitable" might be to describe a study or other source as not making a compelling argument. However this isn't typical usage for that word.

Be that as it may, @DrChinese has resolved any concern I might have had very nicely in his response #27, which you seem to be in concordance with. This paragraph in particular from that comment really cleared things up for me:
DrChinese said:
Not that my opinion matters: but if the speculative elements of posts are reasonably identified (so that the casual reader is alerted), then often further discussion can occur without hitting the fringes. Sometimes I comment on the quality of the references precisely so that discussion can continue, with caveats in mind. I think that many PF posters operate similarly. (If I really thought forum rules were being badly violated, I would simply report the post.)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
DrChinese said:
:welcome:

"there is no known science in support, so they are wrong." That's a big difference from saying "there is no known science in support, but we are right anyway."

False bifurcation. Those may seem very different from the perspective of one arguing the truth of one side or the other, but the similarity is strong where it is important. Both claim certainty whether something is or isn't based not on what is known, but on a lack of knowledge.
.
No known, well vetted science supporting something could suggest it is very unlikely to be observed. It does not provide certainty of non-existence nor impossibility.