Posted: Aug 21, 2017 5:20 pm
Wortfish wrote: but more often than not bad papers - even fraudulent ones - get published:
Citation that supports this claim please. As it stands, this looks like nothing more than the classic theist canard of "science is wrong sometimes, therefore we can't trust it."
Even though, like ALL theists, you happily cherry pick what science works for you and what doesn't.
Give it a rest, we've laughed this nonsense out of here befre.
Wortfish wrote: A more useful criterion is whether the findings are validated in further research and the paper is cited accordingly. Unless this happens, scientific papers should only be regarded as tenatatively pointing to a possible conclusion that may be overturned.
Usually scientific papers which have a tentative conclusion, say as much in the paper itself. Something you'd know, if you knew anything about science.
Wortfish wrote:Do you have any example of how engineering is practised today using no thought process or foresight whatsoever?
How about you answer the questions already posed to you, instead of galloping off to ask more of your own in a transparent attempt at evasion?