|
I feel that I should explain my statement above (about mainstream scientists) in more detail..
I am not against "revolutionary ideas" in science per se..
The problem is the presentation of non-mainstream issues. This presentation is in almost all cases over-simplistic, giving the general public a totally wrong idea about how new things are come-to be.. like, someone has to simply scrap everything that has been done in the past (because it is old and wrong and part of scientific establishment etc) and voila! Now we know the REAL truth!..
Nothing can be more wrong that this..
Main stream science is a result of HARD work of generations of scientists, a process in which ideas are checked and cross-checked millions of times for interrelated consistency with other related and non-related facts and theories.. Rejecting main-stream science means not using pre-existing knowledge.. and this is very unreliable thing to do.
Presenting ideas that are not peer-reviewed properly as some sort of "revelation" is dangerous (because if idea or theory is not checked, how do you know you have not made a fundamental mistake?).
And, if that idea does not pass peer review, it does not mean the "official" science is against it because of conspiracy or some like that reason.. It is because the idea itself has no merit.
This is how science works.
|