--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, freeradicalfederation <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > > > > It is true that it is extraordinarily difficult to > > > distinguish between a cause and a correlation, but why > > > are so sure, Off, that this is a correlation?>> > > > > Because i haven't seen any evidence and i don't think this has been > > published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Therefore it is not > > credible. And I have never heard of anyone ever saying this effect > > before. > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > OffWord - you shouldn't have to wonder whether this has been > published. I specifically said in my earlier post it was unpublished > data. If you can conclude that all unpublished data is not credible>>
As many here can attest to I am very strict in that all credible data must be published in respected peer reviewed scientific journals before it can be considered of use to society. This attitude of mine is true of most maintstream scientific attitudes, and even most mainstream media. To think otherwise is basically the realm of the non-scientists and anyone who claims such things without proof is called a fanatic by most mainstream educated society. Good luck in publishing. If it is good science and has statistical significance it should be published. I am all for it. Until then, unless everyone believes me that I have the Holy Grail in my basement - the real one - which I have proven, then they are all close-minded people if they do not believe my unpublished proof, according to your opinion of how society should function and believe. OffWorld
