Modern science publishes research through a careful peer-review system, and it is the peer-reviewed literature that scientists rely on for their information. Nevertheless, the peer-review system is very poorly understood among the general public, and opponents of science tend to be very critical and skeptical of it. In my personal experience debating with anti-scientists, I have found that their default position is to blindly reject all peer-reviewed data (unless of course is one of the handful of studies that seems to support their position). When I ask them why they are so distrustful of the peer-review system, they generally say something along the lines of, “its biased and you can only publish if you agree with the mainstream view.” The fascinating thing about claims like this is that they are nearly always made by people who have no personal experience with the scientific literature: people who have never written or…
View original post 2,553 more words
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments