> I stand by my position that any reasonable person can see that you
appear dishonest
>when you knowingly don't mention anything critical of your idea and then
turn around
>and tell people that THEY have to do the literature search and look for
any critical
>papers themselves!
I have dealt with your counterarguments for several years on this
listserve. In all of that time I have never seen you give a single piece
of contrary evidence to whatever point you were trying to make. Correct me
if I am wrong. Of course, you may not know any, but if that is the case,
you have not done your homework.
Think twice about working like that Art, it will result in people
>not believing your work without extensive fact checking. Science operates
on trust
>and you don't want a reputation as someone who isn't trustworthy. It's
also not a
>good Christian witness to non-believing geologists.
I could not agree more. Complete honesty demands multiple working
hypotheses be used in all research. However, I know of no scientists who
do so sucessfully, because it is too much work. That is a tragedy for
which we all pay, but the enterprise still succeeds because the property of
the community amounts to multiple working hypotheses, so long as the
community is open to all ideas. However I do not labor under the illusion
that any scientist has tested every conceivable idea before publishing a
paper. Do you?