I will grant you that the prestige behind a scientist or organization may play a part in getting an idea looked at,
Thank you. I don't think we need to rehash famous examples explored ad nauseum where false ideas and faked data were widely accepted without any real evidence or corroborating data to support such claims. It's not always "all about the evidence."
It is also worth noting that, contrary to that which your anti-science conspiracy theory might suggest, any such flaws and hoaxes were actually revealed by scientists conducting scientificinvestigation.
It is this ability to weed out philosophical conclsions, wishful thinking and genral nonsense by testing conclusions against reality that differentiates science from other forms of investigation.
You would be well advised to apply such thinking to your own flawed conclusions....
™ Version 4.2
