A very impressive article.
Hard to imagine why readers would not find this convincing!
In doing science, you see where the data leads. After collecting data, conducting field and/or laboratory tests, and testing hypotheses, you draw conclusions based on the data and test results. If scientists willfully violate this rule of practice, then they are conducting pseudo science, or if you prefer, “fake” science. Scientists – objective, impartial, dispassionate and ethical practitioners that is – do not start with a conclusion (a prejudiced, preferred conclusion), and then go cherry picking data to fit that desired outcome, and along the way, bury, exclude or ignore data that contradicts the desired outcome.
(If this process or modus operandi sounds familiar, it is because historians-cum-propagandists do this, too. Inconvenient facts that contradict the politically desired narrative are ignored and suppressed. We have previously addressed the problems with Western historiography. Of course, Western journalists are guilty of ignoring and burying inconvenient facts on a daily basis.)
View original post 2,266 more words