Ah yes, science by concensus
You're all right. We are correct in being "righteous" about the scientific method, and how it should be rigorously applied to science. That's how good science works.
We would never for example, withhold empirical data and release "adjusted" figures so that our methodology couldn't be scrutinised.
We would never then make predictions based on such methodologies no matter how "sophisticated" our computer models were because we know that fudged data in = rubbish out.
Maybe astrology and some of our "science" has a lot in common after all...or maybe not. Astrologists look to the stars to explain events, our New Age scientists dismiss our closest star!
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Apple to devs: NO slurping users' HEALTH for sale to Dark Powers
- Is that a 64-bit ARM Warrior in your pocket? No, it's MIPS64
- Apple 'fesses up: Rejected from the App Store, dev? THIS is why