@"BIAD"
I understand people who are distrustful of the peer review process, however, as I stated earlier. It IS the best we have.
To put faith in a process that has no peer review at all, is the slipperiest slope of all because it means you have to believe anyone who comes to you and makes a statement claiming it's fact.
I'm not a scientist. I cannot conduct DNA testing nor read the results of such tests. This is not my area of expertise. Bill Nye I am not. So I have to trust the people who are scientists, who know more about science than I do, for what they tell me as I have no way to verify whether what they tell me is true or not.
Peer review is meant to protect people from the snake oil salesman, the person just filling your head full of lies.
So while the system itself is imperfect, having one or two scientists in the same field review the material and say whether or not the evidence is valid, is the only thing we have to protect ourselves.
If it's science, there can sometimes be conflicting opinions, as is the case of global warming. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environ...g-evidence If there are conflicting reports inside the scientific community, then we can read from both sides and draw our own conclusions, but to say that we should just do away with peer review in total, and begin believing anything anyone tells us, is the most dangerous slope there is..
To me, this person has ZERO tangible evidence of big foot, this does not mean we may not someday find evidence, but it does mean that in my opinion, this man had none.
I think what people do is confuse theory and hypothesis, with proof and fact, and decide claims of proof and fact needs not be verifiable.
I understand people who are distrustful of the peer review process, however, as I stated earlier. It IS the best we have.
To put faith in a process that has no peer review at all, is the slipperiest slope of all because it means you have to believe anyone who comes to you and makes a statement claiming it's fact.
I'm not a scientist. I cannot conduct DNA testing nor read the results of such tests. This is not my area of expertise. Bill Nye I am not. So I have to trust the people who are scientists, who know more about science than I do, for what they tell me as I have no way to verify whether what they tell me is true or not.
Peer review is meant to protect people from the snake oil salesman, the person just filling your head full of lies.
So while the system itself is imperfect, having one or two scientists in the same field review the material and say whether or not the evidence is valid, is the only thing we have to protect ourselves.
If it's science, there can sometimes be conflicting opinions, as is the case of global warming. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environ...g-evidence If there are conflicting reports inside the scientific community, then we can read from both sides and draw our own conclusions, but to say that we should just do away with peer review in total, and begin believing anything anyone tells us, is the most dangerous slope there is..
To me, this person has ZERO tangible evidence of big foot, this does not mean we may not someday find evidence, but it does mean that in my opinion, this man had none.
I think what people do is confuse theory and hypothesis, with proof and fact, and decide claims of proof and fact needs not be verifiable.