How reliable is science? (The limitations of science)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 17:27 (4607 days ago) @ David Turell

The body of the article you linked stated:-" A caution is that this method using supernovae is built on several assumptions, and therefore independent checks of the result are important in order to draw any robust conclusion. "-yet the title claims: 'Cosmic mirages' confirm accelerated cosmic expansion-And this is in a major scientific journal. Imagine how headlines like this will become distorted as they trickle down to the masses. More to the point, what assumptions? Where is the list of assumed data that the layman, should he be so inquisitive and industrious, could look up so as to get a better understanding of what is being assumed. -To make issues worse, many, if not most, of the peer reviewed studies CHARGE for copies of their publications. Now, I do not have a particular issue with that in the sense that, hey, a scientist has to eat too, but what percentage of the population can AFFORD to purchase every scientific paper that catches their eye, or to keep a running tally of subscriptions to dozens of peer reviewed publications? And further, if those publications are being intellectually dishonest by excluding studies and research that don't fit into the common paradigm then how can the layman be sure that he is getting a fair and balanced view of the research instead of something slanted to one side or the other?-This is the issue with science as business.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.