Everything is obvious in hindsight. Scientists “refuse to consider evidence” every day. What you see as solid evidence may be disregarded by others as fake, weak, or unimportant.
Yes. This is our fundamental difference on this subject, you believe in the mainstream scientists on this subject, I do not. We will not be able to convince each other. Lets agree on t
Do you think BCH is trestles?
You’ve also ignored the fact that the scientific community self-corrected. You can complain it wasn’t fast enough, if you’ve got a better alternative…
Science isn’t about believing others. Data is presented as is. & it is possible to think for your self & reach the same conclusions as a majority.
The majority always gets up-ended by a minority. Often it's a single researcher who found something, gets ostracized, and then won't let it go until their reaserch is acknowledged.
Seems more like a fact of life than an issue with science. kind of like BTC vs BCH.
Bingo
then idk why people place this issue at the feet of science.
Because many scientists in the majority have taken an arbiter-of-truth stance instead of one of curiosity. Also I think money is a very big factor.
as do religious figures (of nearly all religions). there's just no way to prove them wrong. & doesn't mean we should listen to them. yeah money & public policy is likely a huge factor.
