NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

I'll agree that peer review shows that checks are in place to help keep science on track ( thank nonexistent God ), but at the same time, it also demonstrates that science is not only prone to problems, but that it also has them. Therefore the superior status bestowed upon science by biased scientific skeptics who ignore those problems and only focus on its pure principles and ideals is unrealistic. Going even further and focusing only on the problems of other methods, or ignoring them altogether in order to prop their belief in scientific superiority is even worse.

[QUOTE="Randall, post: 149019, member: 2682"] [FONT=arial]I'll agree that peer review shows that checks are in place to help keep science on track ( thank nonexistent God ), but at the same time, it also demonstrates that science is not only prone to problems, but that it also [I]has[/I] them. Therefore the superior status bestowed upon science by biased scientific skeptics who ignore those problems and only focus on its pure principles and ideals is unrealistic. Going even further and focusing only on the problems of other methods, or ignoring them altogether in order to prop their belief in scientific superiority is even worse.[/FONT] [/QUOTE]

Verification