By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
o_O.Q said:
Torillian said:

You seem to argue that the peer review process is a weakness rather than a strength. You utilize colloquial terms like propositions to demean scientific theories and make them seem less credible. Just not things that someone trained in the scientific method would do in my experience. 

acknowledging that something has weaknesses is not the same thing as saying its only a weakness

i acknowledge that there is no better way for mankind to evaluate things, that doesn't mean that its infallible

 

"You utilize colloquial terms like propositions to demean scientific theories"

i did that with the big bang because the evidence i've seen appears to be way more speculative than with other scientific theories

So then is the peer review process a better way to evaluate things than religious hierarchy because that was the original comparison and I am happy to admit that peer review is not perfect if you can admit that it's a better path to truth than the religious hierarchy it was juxtaposed against.

And why is it more speculative than the theory of gravity? We have observations and the big bang is currently the best explanation we have that fits all of the observable data. What in your mind is a really solid theory from science that we definitely have nailed down to your liking?



...