Strongly upvoted for giving a reasonable comparable example.
I would agree in regards to the example of a building fire. If a group of very respected folks published a paper about the consequences of building fires, etc., with an assumption that nearly everyone will continue to sleep while on fire, that would seem to be ridiculous. And probably would be perceived as being made in bad faith, if clearly enumerated and not hidden away.
It’s somewhat disturbing that the editors at Nature would allow this through, it raises the question of what other absurd assumptions they allow in ‘impactful’ papers.
Strongly upvoted for giving a reasonable comparable example.
I would agree in regards to the example of a building fire. If a group of very respected folks published a paper about the consequences of building fires, etc., with an assumption that nearly everyone will continue to sleep while on fire, that would seem to be ridiculous. And probably would be perceived as being made in bad faith, if clearly enumerated and not hidden away.
It’s somewhat disturbing that the editors at Nature would allow this through, it raises the question of what other absurd assumptions they allow in ‘impactful’ papers.