Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (54).
[–] • 1 pt

Consensus based of repeated experiments with the same result and survival of peer review is science with consensus. Being a contrarian who thinks that questioning science is science without any experimentation or evidence to the contrary is not science.

[–] • 3 pts

peer review

This kills the science.

Begging your direct competitors to be allowed to publish is a very bad idea. For proper peer review, you need to publish first and then have your peers review your findings. Otherwise you get a situation where anything that goes against the current zeitgeist is automatically shut down. That is, if you can get the funding for it anyways, and somehow get away with asking the questions in the first place without being fired, blacklisted, and having "students" literally hunt you down in the streets.

[+] [deleted] • 2 pts
[–] • 1 pt

Not true at all.

A Scientific theory being successful ultimately is decided by making predictions.

I don't need to make any experiment or provide evidence FOR a theory if the theories predictions observably are absent.