"This is why scientists don't publish nonsense in peer reviewed journals. You've inadvertently, blindly, and likely with continuing befuddlement, stumbled on why science has a really great track record."
Once again with the insults. Is that scientific as well? Now we understand why certain scientists were jailed 500 years ago for their new scientific ideas.
Time to abandon thread.
Once again with the insults. Is that scientific as well? Now we understand why certain scientists were jailed 500 years ago for their new scientific ideas.
First, where's the insult? Did you take offense at the 'continuing befuddlement' phrase. If so, sorry, but I've been following the thread and I've concluded you don't understand the scientific process. Second, why the 'again' comment?
In any case, you are not addressing the point of my post, which is that the process requires scientists to submit their data, hypothesis, and conclusions to peer review, and the track record of this process has been outstanding and without precedent successful in human history.