most scientific papers are wrong?

What rant?There is no rant there. It's questions that you should have considered before even posting the thread as a PNT.All of the questions are still valid and YOU need to answer them.It appears that you are simply going to use this thread to return to your assertions of old pet predudices of yours that you have never been able to support.Sorry, but so far all you're doing is whining. Try answering the questions.Highly likely it is true but...
so what? What is there here to discuss?Did you even read the paragraph following the two you quoted?Do you even have a clue what the scientific method entails?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

this does have the potential for a reasonable discussion.The study could be important because it points to one of the great strengths of the scientific method.Studies are published. Information is freely distributed.That change is enormous. Before the advent of the scientific method ideas were held back, hoarded as secrets. Today we see just the opposite, the ideas are placed out before the community.The article says that many or even most may turn out to be wrong. That's probably true. But that is also one of the strengths of the system and method. By placing the ideas out in the public discussion area, others can test them and try to replicate the studies. It is that step, the replication, not opinion, not beliefs, not authority, not dogma, that determines which are valid and which are wrong.It is those two features,

• early distribution and discussion of ideas
• that must then be independantly confirmed and replicated

that makes the scientific method so robust and successful.Far from being a condemnation of the process, the article is infact a celebration of the scientific method.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Several points were raised in Message 16 that you have not addressed.The Scientific Method includes early distribution of ideas and findings. They are published as widely as possible throughout the community so that they can be tested by others.If many or even most scientific papers turn out to be wrong, what is the problem?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

randman, other than repeating assertions that you have NEVER been able to support, what does that have to do with the question I asked?What difference does it make if many, most even, scientific papers are wrong?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No randman. You have not answered the question asked.Let me try to work through this with you.The question is "What problem exists with publishing findings even if wrong?"What is OT is your repetitious Haeckeling which has nothing to do with the issue.So let us go back to the quetion.Is it possible to question or challenge a finding that is not published?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

and again in Message 58.Is it possible to question or challenge a finding that is not published?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Very good. Now let's see what randman answers.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would include the peer review process, conferences and the whole concept of open access to ideas as part of the publishing procedure.The idea is that unless an idea is out there for criticism, it cannot be confirmed or falsified.But let's see what randman says.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion