geoff wrote:
In message , magwitch writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Well everything you have said suggests that is precisely what you
DO believe.

If you look at my original post - I was just quoting from a NS
article I was in the middle of reading
Yes there are big problems, but the solutions are not as
insurmountable as you like to paint

Yours are.
Not here

Mine aren't.
Senility must be wonderful


Yeah and I remember reading in New Scientist 10 years ago that there
was a dental treatment that enabled new bone to be formed so tooth
loss could be halted and the effects of peridontal disease would be a
thing of the past... still waiting.

New Scientist is, in a peer-reviewed scientific sense, mostly a comic
for those who like to appear cleverer than they really are.

I can think of several cases of bad science / fraud which have appeared
in Nature over the years

I think you mean Nature or Science have investigated and exposed many
cases of bad science/fraud over the years and their rigorous peer review
process ensures that it's either not published at all or only published
when the author(s) have explained to the reviewers' satisfaction their
conclusions from the data available.

**** happens

The peer review system isn't perfect but it's the best we have.

grow up, get some dentures


When your idea of an insult is 'senility must be wonderful'?

I'd much rather have false teeth than be an incredulous twerp who gets
his facts out of a phoney science-lite comic.