Quote:
|
But no one should be so foolish to think that science has no motive, or rather SCIENTISTS have no motive. If they are that foolish, they've never published peer reviewed papers or seen the changes a journal takes when the editor and review teams for journals change. Many scientists are so damn sure what they think is right they will SKEWER a paper on review because it advocates a different theory or reaction mechanism (in chemistry for example).
|
Well if the data and findings in that paper stood to merit then they wouldn't need to change the theory. That's the scientific method. Your findings dictate what you say. If those evil peer review editors with an agenda didn't agree with the findings then there probably something wrong with the experiment not that they were biased. Have you gone through this? Because I find your example hard to swallow. Maybe it happens in some incidences but there have been thousands of papers on anthropogenic climate change written. You think this is some global academic conspiracy to actively subvert the scientific method?
Conspiracy theorists. Best to not listen to them.