[FRO] ``Why your papers are half-baked?''

This is another aspects of science politics and sociology that I like to see changed. In line with another strategy I do not like `scientific publications' to be thought of as asserting some `true' `indubitable' `fact'. I do not like people to refer me to `studies' when arguing. This is scientism. 

There is nothing in physics to trust --I am aware that this will probably feed religious fanatics but the benefit overcomes the harm--. People should involve actively in reading a paper. What we instead observe nowadays is a pure spoon-feeding process. A text (e.g. scientific paper) should be a mirror for reader's reflection, not some biblical story to be read like a newspaper. 

• I want to show that scientists are humans. I want my mistakes to stay documented in history.