My problem is she tries to trick laymen by engaging with them on the level of "philosophy of science" when neither she nor the book's target audience has a good grasp of the subject. Most peoples ideas of scientific methodology are probably still at a high school level. They probably think 'peer review' means other scientists reproducing your experiments or something.
Which is ironic since most of the idiots who buy her argument also thinks "I'm not a client scientist so I won't argue with actual climate scientists and assume what they say is true". Why the double standard?
If you want to approach this at the level of philosophy of science the least you can do is actually read Popper instead of taking her word for it. Follow that up with Dawid's String Theory and the Scientific Method and Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
>>12852814>>12852791what do you think would happen if she sent a video of herself masturbating to Motl?
