Uhm. Not sure how to put this, but seems like remaining silent would be a worse option...

Looking at your other articles, it seems to me like you came here with many strong opinions you want to share. You keep posting long monologues, and you get some response to them, but I suspect that there are more articles already written and waiting to be published, regardless of the feedback you might get here.

Which wouldn't be a problem if your articles were positively accepted (i.e. upvoted) by the community... but they are not. Barely anyone votes on them, and the average feedback is negative.

I wish I could provide a more detailed feedback, but the fact is that these articles are just too long for me. Even length is not exactly the problem, it's like... for example, this article is about medical diagnostic imaging, which is a topic I know almost nothing about, your arguments are not easy for me to verify, maybe you are right about something important, or maybe you are completely wrong... I can't tell. Generally, if I can't tell, I don't vote. But I suspect that most readers here are in the same position. But then, this is not the right audience for you, and it is not the right content for this website.

If you want actual engagement with your ideas, I suggest to take it much slower. Don't put dozen claims in a single article, because almost no one will read them all. (Ironically, you mention "gish gallop" in the same article than contains links to proteins, group delusion, lithium, gravitational waves, leukemia diagnostics, sunscreen, Triclosan, spine surgery, Gadolinium, boron, flouride, heart attack, neutrinos, Higgs particle, satellites, balloons, laser, fusion, climate, planets, and expansion of the universe.) If you focus on one thing, there is a chance you may find people who understand it and can have a debate with you. Otherwise, you are just wasting time here.

Just chiming in to say I agree with Villiam. I actually read your whole post just now, and I thought it was interesting, and making an important claim... but I couldn't follow it well enough to evaluate whether or not it is true, or a good argument, so I didn't vote on it. I like the suggestion to break up your stuff into smaller chunks, and maybe add more explanation to them also.

For example, you could have made your first post something like "Remember that famous image of a black hole? Guess what: It may have been just hallucinating signal out of noise. Here's why." Then your next post could be: "Here's a list of examples of this sort of thing happening again and again in physics, along with my general theory of what's wrong with the epistemic culture of physics." I think for my part at least, I didn't have enough expertise to evaluate your claims about whether these examples really were false positives, nor enough expertise to evaluate whether they were just cherry-picked failures or indicative of a deeper problem in the community. If you had walked through the arguments in more detail, and maybe explained some key terms like "noise floor" etc., then I wouldn't have needed expertise and would be able to engage more productively.

I myself write controversial posts like this [LW · GW] which often combine ideas from a broad range of disciplines [LW · GW]. I have even written specifically about problems in theoretical physics [? · GW]. As something of a heretic [LW · GW], I appreciate Villiam's work as a community builder and I agree with every one of Villiam's points.

This community recognizes that there are indeed problems in the application of statistical reasoning within physics and biology. I suspect the strongest negative reaction of this community towards you has little to do with your opinions. You are getting a negative reaction for your poor writing quality.

Your posts are full of factual errors. [LW(p) · GW(p)] They are full of logical errors. [LW(p) · GW(p)] They contain misleading information [LW(p) · GW(p)]. They are written in a disdainful tone inappropriate for this site. Such writing does not meet the criteria of "a high standard of inquiry".

Worst of all, you insult community members.

…a seemingly intelligent LessWrong commenter…

…A more charitable assessment is that my articles provoked a strong case of cognitive dissonance in him…

That must be a great way to build up Karma.…I imagine that your [Villiam's] instinct is to avoid confrontation, make friends with the right people, and support group norms…

Please refrain from insulting other community members. That is not how we do things here.