I’m aware that scientists don’t like the reasoning but that doesn’t change the fact that they were right.
Even though the process is in place to evaluate claims etc, either the announcements of the finds should be held back until a thorough examination is made, or the retraction should be by those who made the announcement and as publicly and widespread as that.
It doesn’t seem that the retractions get quite the coverage as the announcements, and all that does is lend itself to accusations of agenda and cover-ups.
“It doesn’t seem that the retractions get quite the coverage as the announcements, and all that does is lend itself to accusations of agenda and cover-ups”
I would agree with the first part. The ManchurianStreamMedia has been quite consistent in its agenda-how many days now without a mention of the manmadeglobalwarmingisofficallyahoax?
But if a scientist attempted to move an idea forward based on a scientifically discredited piece of date (whether silently or publicly announced) his/her idea would be uncovered as based on refuted evidence.
“I’m aware that scientists don’t like the reasoning”
That’s my question exactly-what reasoning? It’s assumed a priori to already be false based on a belief system that is incompatible( mostly-there is the ‘god designed evolution’ school) with evolution. It seems to me to be the equivalent of: r too, am not, r too, am not . . .