Prevalence of Bias

[hammegk]

Here seems to me where II's Banter link fits in (for all you skeptics).

http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/papers/skeptik.html

 

[Smoking Joker]

That is definitely an article I want to keep. Thank you for leading me to it, Hammegk.

For anyone here who has not yet read the atricle, I'd be interested in hearing your comments.

 

[kookbreaker]

And about the spaghetti code bit: There is a great deal of evidence that DNA is not particularly well programmed. As just a minor example, there's lots of stuff in there that doesn't do anything. Especially stuff that is just broken versions of things that do work.

Ah, Microsoft DNA.

 

[Phaycops]

Tez,

So you don't think the scenario of the "underdog scientist" being ignored by the rest of the scientific community is common?

(By the way, you've got my vote for President of the World if you're going to give scientists unlimited resources.)

SJ--I think that scenario is bull poopy. It's something that pseudoscientists claim because they don't have any data. In the earth sciences, at least, I've come across plenty of theories and ideas that attack the "mainstream" theories, and none of them appear to be silenced. Certainly, they are opposed, but if the weight of scientific evidence is with them, then they're accepted. There are professors in my department who remember the whole plate tectonics debate, and who remember when it was taught as being a sort of out-there idea. Now, it's taught in introductory geology. Because there was sufficient data, the theory was eventually accepted.

Maybe a part of it is also laziness on the part of the pseudoscientists or whoever making the claim. It's much easier to claim you're being discriminated against than to say you haven't really got any data or that your theory is based on flawed premises. It takes a long time for theories to go from being on the fringe to being mainstream, and just because a theory is fringe doesn't mean it is destined to become mainstream. Sorry about the long rant....