Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)

Thu, 7 Nov 1996 12:47:26 +0000

In article <55nhn0$>, Alan Weiner
<> writes
>Pls support your premise with some facts. Name some discoveries that
>were surpressed and later found to be valid.
This is an excellent request which will make most of the anti science
brigade twitch. The problem is that scientists and non-scientists often
publish 'theories' & 'results' which are criticised, mocked and
occasionally attacked with vitriolic venom. And sometines the original
authour is found to be correct. This may be unpleasant and scar careers
but is part of the social performance aspect of scientific
investigation, and perhaps does act as an error checker.

However, the annoying loons with an axe to grid jump on this and distort
it into som evil conspiracy by ....., well all the usual sad suspects.

The facts are it is easy to publish information and easy for others to
investigate. If an individual bemoans the fact that they are mocked or
even worse ignored by some artificial establishment, then what kudos and
ego boost were they looking for?

If an investigator says 'I dont believe so n so is true' then I give the
original claim the benefit of the doubt. But when its a case of 'so n so
is incorrect because there are no collaborating facts to support their
claim' well, in my view chances are its suspect and should be approached
with caution.

Get: if your lucky € Todays maths question: If it takes a
Talk: € man a week to walk a fortnight, how
Find: Vinery House ls4 2lb € many nuts are there in a bag of apples?