Reply #102: What I'm hearing is

[2beToby]

science of our day and age has limits, therefore, science is ineffective in the areas it's currently limited. That's ridiculous. We've crashed through the limits of science before and I'm willing to bet we'll do it again. At one point, magnetism was considered magic. Not so much anymore.

Why is it wrong to be skeptical of something that cannot be proven? My skepticism isn't hurting you. And it goes the other way too. If I have faith in something, believe in it without any facts to support my belief, I don't really care if no one else believes in it. And the skeptics shouldn't care that I believe in it either. So long as I'm not arguing against their basic human rights or the rights of others. Why can't we just acknowledge each other and move on?

I also hear people talking about the bias in the scientific community. I share that concern--how do we know good, sound peer reviewed studies aren't being given print space? Where are the facts? Why are these rejected scientists, why aren't we, as concerned layman, writing letters to the scientific community offering to help support their publications if they make the selection process transparent? Is the process transparent already and we've never taken the time to find out?

Or are they just not enough scientists interested in peer reviewing XYZ study? Maybe we should be looking into funding aspiring scientists who do have an interest in XYZ.

It comes down to money and funding. We can't force somebody to conduct a peer review of a study if they aren't interested in it. That would lead to lazy work. And we can't force a publication to run against it's backers--that'd be bad business and eventually the publication would fail; it may not be what's best for me, but I understand the dilemma. This is not a limitation of science, but rather a limitation of time, money and interest.