Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
Right. It is. You've found one example where there was inefficiency. What was in that 110 page email chain? What was so difficult? I really want to know the answer.
|
I provided you with I believe 6 examples. If you want to know, why don't you find out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
Before it's vetted? Yes. When CERN found the Higgs-Boson, no scientist was allowed to talk about it until they all got together, figured out their results, ensured that their messaging was consistent, and THEN they held a press conference to announce this. Why should we not expect similar vetting?
|
The parallels you are drawing (CT bus driver, cern scientists talking amongst themselves) pretty well proves to me you are either intentionally being obtuse or simply do not understand what you're talking about.
These are false equivalences, they aren't even tenuously related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
Science is infallible. Scientists are not.
I can provide you many links of scientists doctoring data. Environmentalists that use junk science. Statisticians that can make the data say anything. Scientists that are influenced by funding (whether from the Sierra club, or Exxon Mobil). The list goes on.
|
Which is why scientists need to share and explain their research with the rest of the scientific community as well as the public, so we can all have informed discourse.