On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 04:29:46 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 02:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:

Books about imaginary entities have less basis on science than
magnetic effect on water and the precipitation of carbonates.

I don't expect you like being told that either.

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication from
a University, there are loads of others.
Â*Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god doesn't
exist; where beliefs of the existence that father christmas, and the
like, are akin to snake oil too?

Thes days when I hearÂ* 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in it the
words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever happened to
actual real investigative science?

Some mock the concept of a peer reviewed article, others believe they
represent greater credibility than claims made in pubs or even newsgroups..

YMMV

The concept is a goodish one. Unfortunately IRL it doesn't mean a lot, since the peer review process of weeding out the bad research mostly does not work. I wish it did. In practice people seldom criticise even the most outrageous crp because they don't want their research trashed in return. It's about careers/money first, not science first.


NT