If something is found in a scientific journal, it’s often assumed that it’s now “true”. I’ve often had interactions with people on origins issues (i.e. evolution) and found that there’s an almost entirely blind trust in technical journals and scientific publications. If an evolutionary scientist has a published paper on the topic at hand, he’s an assumed expert and is, by default, right. If a Creation scientist has written a hundred papers that aren’t “published” in a mainstream journal, he’s immediately presumed an imbecile and is wrong, no matter what he says, because he’s not a “real” scientist.
John Byl, professor of mathematics at Trinity Western University, writes here on the trustworthiness of published scientific data and demonstrates the sheer silliness of worshiping the priesthood of the PhD and their religious texts (i.e. scientific journals). Just because something is published in Nature, Scientific American, or the Journal of Biological Chemistry, it may not be reliable. *Gasp*
Interesting thoughts and definitely something a-typical, and it’s a refreshing read.
Until Next Time,
Lyndon “The Armchair Skeptic of Skepticism” Unger