Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (30687)	10/6/2012 6:41:46 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 69300

"The researchers found that about 21 percent of the retractions were attributable to error, while 67 percent were due to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43 percent), duplicate publication (14 percent), and plagiarism (10 percent). Miscellaneous or unknown reasons accounted for the remaining 12 percent." So duplicate publication does not interfere. And error does not interfere. And none of this crap speaks to the Science that DID pass fraud, error, misconduct, and duplication...and was NOT TOSSED!! So 100% of the Science that DID pass those duplication errors, etc. CAN be SCIENCE. 100% of the crap gets knocked out as we go along (as the above information so appropriately makes clear)! WHOOPEE!!

To: average joe who wrote (30687)	10/7/2012 3:54:56 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

"You know how every other day a new science report comes out saying this and that gives you cancer? But then a day after it's revealed that the same this and that actually prevents cancer?" Actually, most of the actual science is correctly worded to describe a series of experiments. The media and various mags interpret and propagate the data as suits their objectives and readership. Constant vigilance is required in navigating the mine field of knowledge. Any "Truth" less than about 10 years old is suspect--at least to me...