>> >> There is no "scientific community as a whole" that could put money, time >> or >> effort into anything. The Navy is funding part of the "scientific >> community >> as a whole" - so part of the community is, in fact studying the issue. > > >Actually, there is in the respect that there are a limited number of >journals and if they don't allow an article in, it's dead. There are a >limited number of respected labs that can and will replicate results and if >they don't want to (for whatever reason), it's dead.
If worse comes to worse there is always the pay to publish journals. For instance in psychology there are several journals that charge you for publishing. The article still goes through peer review, but its noticeably more lax than the tier 1 journals like American Psychologist etc. As for labs, it again really depends on what you're trying to do. Again using psychology, replication is more or less a hit or miss affair. that's one of the reasons for statistics, they tell you the chances of a replication study getting the same range of results as your work. A controversial study if well done will be replicated. A classic example from my area of psych is Hilgard's hypnotic pain control experiments from the 60's and 70's. These studies had some fairly controversial results that were replicated. But it took a few years. > >To answer your question: yes, the experiment should be examined (and they >> are examined as all of the scientific responses to ID prove) but that >> experiment will NOT touch the core. The core of evolution is built upon >> over a century of good experiments, tremendously compelling evidence and >> NOTHING has come even close to assailing that core. > > >Will NOT touch the core? NOT? Thank you for showing my point so well. Even >if the experiment touches the core, the feeling of NOT is there. Not very >open to change, even proper scientific change. >I'd think that scientists would love to see a proper experiment that turns >an entire 'truth' on its side. Oh, for another Einstein. > >Over turning a scientific theory isn't a game of words (as the IDers would >> like to think) or a game of a single "Eureka!" moment (as many people seem >> to think). If it happens at all it's a game of struggling inches: you're >> damn right it's work. Hard work. Extremely so. Moreover for your theory to be generally accepted it has to provide a better, more succinct and efficient explanation of the data than the theory you are trying to supplant. ID simply does not fit into this >> >> You have to fight tooth-and-nail for every convert to your cause and every >> person that laughs in your face needs to be met with more and better >> evidence. THAT'S the way it works. And an ugly process to boot. I've seen a couple of after hours near fights based on the ill feelings at conferences. > > >Yes, but it has to be allowed to work. If I have all the evidence in the >world on a subject but none of the journals will publish my results and none >of the universities will allow me to showcase them (or even test them), then >the point is moot. There are ways, for instance pay for publishing journals, the Library of Science journals etc. The big problem with all of these as far as the IDiots are concerned that they all require peer review. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Download the latest ColdFusion 8 utilities including Report Builder, plug-ins for Eclipse and Dreamweaver updates. http;//www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs%5adobecf8%5Fbeta Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:242033 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
