SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ilaine who wrote (35706)4/23/1999 10:45:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit  Read Replies (2) of 108807
 
Blue, try reading any peer review journal and you will find lots of "these birds" in the sciences. Try Science or Nature for a start. The philosophical approach to science is to generate a falsifiable hypothesis and then pick it apart based on predictions that arise from the hypothesis. Hypotheses that don't generate testable predictions are useless. So a great deal of time is spent trying to disprove a theory.

For some reason there is a popular idea that perfectly good science is rejected because it challenges "accepted" ideas. I have yet to see a single case of that sort of thing in biochemistry, genetics or evolutionary science. I have seen grant money doled out for political reasons.

There was a journal established about forty years ago which served as a forum for unconventional ideas. It is called The Journal of Theoretical Biology.

TTFN,
CTC
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News