Science discovers more and more each individual day world wide spoken. 

 

Non the less many errors are being made by professional scientists. To name a few see these video's please.

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zpi9V0_5tw

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q&t=223s

 

www.retractionwatch.com

 

Now science is supposed to correct itself; but what if it does not, and that happens a lot, unfortunately. 

 

Then people get mislead for many years, thinking they are right about some issues but they are wrong. This can seriously cause some tremendous damage to lots of people even with deaths as a consequence.  

 

The question rises then if science is still, in its present form, done as it should be done or has is become more and more a funds/finances driven business in which billions of dollars/Euro's/Yen's etc goes around in ?

The latter seems to be more and more the case, but this is not how science is supposed to be. So time for a change seems to be at its place now adays. 

 

Proposal: 

 

Now science is usually a public tax payed endavour. So the tax payers should also have a say in the findings. It is payed with their money AND the results affects many tax paying people. So it is only fair that tax payers should have a say in science results. Of course not every tax payer has insight in many matters, but at least tax paying people should have the opportunity to have a say in these matters and deliver arguments why a finding is correct or incorrect.

So therefor before publishing science data; an independant researcher(team) of taxpaying people must have verified the results. And thus all publication must be held in a preliminairy state of publication. It can be published in preliminairy papers and marked as such, but is released to the main stream scientific knowledge ONLY after it has been verified by all kinds of scientists  and people who have insight in the subjects, from as much as possible and is workable fields and backgrounds. It does not always require highly educated scientists to bring objections that are valid and correct. There should be a period of (lets say) 6 months to a year that people can bring in objections to the findings for peope who are interested in the field.  

 

Even statistics can be monitored of what people thought of the research and so it can be seen what group of people are closest to the truth in the end.

 

This goes far more deeper then the now adays peer review. And to prevent all kinds of bias, it needs also to be verified by people from other points of worldview. For example I am a creationistic scientist and therefor I think in terms of "God created this in such and such away" these arguments should be included. Why, simple; lots of secular scientist have done wrong research and therefor wasted millions of dollars/Euro's etc 

Next to this; If a publication is done then a reference to all objecting arguments should be added of the reseaching people, by which they officially can object against the publication of the paper and why they object.

 

In finding scientific correct truth people should have influence to object the findings, results and conclusions. 

 

 

 

 

So scientists: stick to the/your observations and not to your fantasies/ biased opinions/desired outcomes. Be honest about what you see and do not stick to your biased opinion,s fantasies andor desired outcomes.

 

Modern day scientists need sometimes to go back to their elementary schools to learn anew about what they realy see and observe. Observation is and should be neutral. But it is mostly not and is biased by our preconceived idea's of how things should be or by the pressure of fundings for these programs. 

 

The only "natural" selection that I see is within science, especially dealing with our origins, where non mainstream findings opinions and results that confirm God and the historicy of the bible are being structuraly removed, censored and the people who convey them are being fired from their scientific positions. Even with the use of "legal, juridical" force and agression of creationistic scientists. 

 

But the more real true scientists discover the non-confirmity of true science with all "billions of years"-theories/idea's, the more scientists will be added to the creationistic/ID camp. Untill it is just as big as or bigger then the main stream science. The truth WILL prevail, no matter how long it is kept under by force. 

 

Today true science is hindered by a strong "God-does-not-exist-and-the-bible-is-not-true" bias, which is strongly supported by folks like Richard Dawkins, Steven hawking, Bill Nye etc. 

 

That is Not how science is supposed to function. Correct science is about truth finding... not about: "I-like-that-idea-better- therefor-all-I-want-to-see and-hear-is-"my-idea-confirming"-data" finding. 

 

 

SPECULATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND ESTIMATES.

Science is all about observing phenomenon and registering it. Now quite unfortunate we have to deal with something that we know as models and theories of how things work. Based on our observations we come up with idea's and there may be the great slource of errors in science. The fantasies of people. Fantasies are nice as long as they are innocent without consequences, but fantasies can be literaly live threathening and even killing if fantasies are taken seriously and acted upon them. 

 

Therefor it is realy realy important to distinguish between observed facts and assumptions, speculations and estimates or even models. 

 

for example:

 

In physics there is a known value to exist, mathematically at least to begin with. It is known as the Planck length. Max planck was a german phycisist and he argued about the value of what is known as the planck constant h. Based on this planck constant which is a real number with a very real physical observable reality to it, is derived what we know as Planck length. the Planck length is according to physics science the utmost shortest distance possible in reality. According to this idea, there exists nothing that is smaller then this Planck length. and the amount is 1.616229(38)×10^−35 meters, which is painfully small. 

 

It is so small that so far we, not even with the utmost best instruments, are able to measure it. 

 

Physically it is impossible to verify this number, because it would require an instrument just as big as our entire solarsystem to measure it and to verify that indeed there is nothing smaller than this distance. and that all objects move in shunks of 1,616...*10^-35 meters. 

 

Of course I can imagine this to be true, But nobody alive here on earth today as a human being, knows it for a fact if it is the smallest distance. We simply dont know and we mostprobably will never know it to be true or not.

 

Therefor this remains an unsolvable issue and theory an idea, a hyposhesis. But it might as well not be true after all. We simply dont know. But in spiute of this it is generaly assumed and accepted that this is the smallest distance between "objects" if you can speak of objects at this scale ?

 

So strickly spoken it remains in mysteries. 

 

But if we accept it as correct and it would turn out to be wrong, then all our ideas about things are turned up side down and become untrue and being reveiled as a fairy tale after all. 

 

SCIENCE VS RELIGION

 

As shown in the piece right here above, speculations are part of science but basically, that means that we must accept that science can be very wrong as well and therefor has become a speculation, assumption based religion. A believe system in which assumptions are the actual religious statements. We believe that the planck length is the smallest distance therefor..... this and this and that and that is valid...... 

 

That basically means that IF and ONLY IF the assumption is true that some theories, idea's are true. 

IF HOWEVER the assumption is WRONG, then your whole Idea, theory, speculation is totaly wrong as well. This is one of the most hard to grasp issues in science where scinetists run into. To say goodby to idea's and theories and assumptions that turn out to be wrong after wards. 

 

Scientists are bad losers so to say, that is where it boils down to, basically. And I must say I have seen that from close by many times. Usually this has to do with fincanial fundings and ego's of people who are highly educated. Because they studied the subject so they must surely know. If they would surely know then why are some many scientists active in the same field arguing with each other. 

 

So basically there is a lot a lot (more then scientists want to admit) of religion involved in what is known as science. 

 

Also the strongly atheistic Steven Hawking admittted in one of his books that; in science the admixture of some ideologies.