RE: Peer reviewed study published in Science Journal turns out to be fraud.
May 23, 2015 at 12:41 pm
(This post was last modified: May 23, 2015 at 12:44 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(May 23, 2015 at 12:36 pm)YGninja Wrote:(May 23, 2015 at 12:34 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Pure chance? Did you even read the article you buffoon?
A separate group tried unsuccessfully to replicate the results. They then asked for the raw data from the original study, which didn't exist. That's exactly how it's supposed to work. If you do a study with fantastic (and I'm not using that term colloquially) results, people are going to look at it closely and try to disprove or confirm the experiment.
It is pure chance that a separate group tried to replicate the results. The results and the conclusion taken from those results should have been exposed during peer-review. Peer reviews are meant to anaylse the veracity of the source data.
On the contrary, virtually every result in science will be subjected to repeated efforts at duplication, not only shortly after the publication but down through the ages when the result could be of any relevance to any other scientific inquiry. Even now newton's results in duplication are still sought every day in huge array of experiments and inqueries, and any deviation, real or through experimental error, rigorously investigated. Were you brain dead during your education years or were you "home schooled" such that you could be unaware of this?
when did any of you co-religionists attempt to duplicate virgin birth and resurrection?
