(October 27, 2011 at 4:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I understand that you would like to be the one who determines what good science and bad science is, along the lines of your own delusions, but again, that's not how it's done. It's evidence of gtfo, as usual.
Quite the contrary, I am saying that I do not have the power to determine what is and is not good science, and neither do you. That's the whole point. You keep trying to arbitrarily define science as whatever you believe in, which is completely fallacious. Science is defined by the methodology used based off of the inductive principle. Steven Meyer’s methodology and reasoning are good, regardless as to whether you accept his conclusions or not. Saying someone is doing bad science simply because you don’t accept their conclusions drawn is nothing more than censorship. That is precisely why Meyer’s article was published by the Smithsonian, the editor and reviewers were intellectually honest enough to admit his methodology and reasoning were solid even if they didn’t agree with his conclusions. Unfortunately for them, they no longer have jobs there because the higher-ups at the Smithsonian would prefer to play a rigged game and engage in censorship than conduct good science.
