IIN that scientists make stuff up when evidence points to a creator

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

↑ View this comment's parent

← View full post
Comments ( 5 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • qwerty098765
    11 years ago | pl

    I first thought you were the poll creator, sorry...this is what tiredness does to me, ugh.

    I guess my wording was pretty much wrong then...the reason that the scientific community's results are generally less biased (or should be ideally) is because of its efforts to test hypothesises and analyse results by a wide range of people.

    I wouldn't call things like homoeopathy science though..their 'research' is pseudo-scientific at best.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    0
    0
      -
    • flutterhigh
      11 years ago | pl

      It's okay.

      I just meant that homeopathy was historically considered acceptable science. Most of that was eradicated with a more rigorous peer-review system, but even then things like cold fusion and N-rays still slipped through the cracks.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      Report
      0
      0
        -
      • qwerty098765
        11 years ago | pl

        Well, true.
        That's why we should never assume our scientific knowledge to be complete I guess...

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        Report
        0
        0
          -
        • flutterhigh
          11 years ago | pl

          Agreed. That's why I love science - always testing what we think we know. We think we understand how gravity works, and then some German dude comes along and shows us it's not that simple. It's sort of a shame that so many people think that a single book contains all the information they'll ever need to learn.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          Report
          0
          0