(April 24, 2013 at 12:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Incorrect, it's ultimately governed by demonstrable evidence and the reproduction thereof.
The "demonstrable evidence" to which you refer is ultimately worthless (in terms of establishing or disproving a theory) unless it has been sanctioned in the peer review process.
(April 24, 2013 at 12:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: And?
Come on, sir, I am sure your debating skills are better than this!
(April 24, 2013 at 12:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A career can be made in science without ever advancing a hypothesis of one's own - merely by picking apart the problems of another's. Some fields have such prodigious scientists in this regard that successfully floating a hypothesis past them has become a rite of passage. Meanwhile - we still have plenty of examples of "fringe" or "ridiculed" science becoming the accepted and "authoritative" explanations.
Of course there are a multitude of career options in science, but this is totally irrelevant. I was discussing the peer review process (which I might add is ABSOLUTELY fundamental to the scientific method) and establishing/challenging theories. My point is as follows: to challenge a theory an individual/group of individuals must undertake the following actions: document his or her/their evidential findings, find a relevant and established academic journal, and submit it for peer review. Read the entire passage again (that you dismissed with "And?"), and you should be able to see where I am coming from.
