Author Fools Scientific Journals—Hot Air
And this is why peer review/scientific journals deserves a bit of healthy dose of skepticism.
And this is why peer review/scientific journals deserves a bit of healthy dose of skepticism.
For a long time now, people have touted the mighty peer-reviewed journal as the way to keep scientists honest. It was the place to go for real answers, and it’s been trusted and touted by atheists as the only source of wisdom. Only papers published by a peer-reviewed journal were worthy of being discussed among true scientists, therefore, papers not published in a peer-reviewed journal were meaningless. Such were the arguments regarding papers written against popular “scientific” studies such as climate change, and natural evolution.
I had the privilege of having an argument with an atheist on Twitter. First, it's a horrible platform for that type of debate, but I did learn that one should never argue with an atheist. While one side tries to debate, the other side simply resorts to name-calling.
The atheist says that believing in God is akin to believing in gremlins; it's irrational, backwards, or illogical. Unfortunately for the atheist, there are valid, and convincing, arguments for the existence of God, and not gremlins.
We hear it all the time how science says... But science doesn't really tell us anything; scientists do. Science is a tool, and the scientist interprets what he finds using science. What this means is that science is not an authority.
Last week it was announced that a new planet was found circling a red dwarf star similar to our Sun. Like Earth, it circles its sun in the Goldilocks zone. In other words, it's at a distance that is not too hot and not too cold, but just right.
Everyone has something that they believe, but that doesn't automatically may it true. A lot of us believe lies, and some of us are fine with that, even when those truths contradict each other.