Science progresses constantly as new discoveries opens up new possibilities for research.
Apparently the motivation to seek funding by scientists, for their research, has lead to an extremely large percentage of their published works being found to be fraudulent, misleading, biased, incomplete, inaccurate and even undependable. It has been said by some authorities, on the subject of research, that the most benefit that can be derived from these published works is to open the mind to fresh ideas and help expand vision.
Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, US,
says most working scientists understand the limitations of published
“When I read the literature, I’m not reading it to find proof like a
textbook. I’m reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with
the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that’s something to
think about,” he says.
Now, I am not arguing the value of scientific research. However, bias can lead a person to favour and accept a finding that supports an already accepted belief.
Now, on the subject of Neanderthals, if they were once thought to be a knuckle dragging, grunting, lower form of life and now, apparently they are thought to be a form of life much closer to modern man, how would it be accepted by the supporters of these beliefs if, in the future, papers started being published that showed, with equally persuasive empirical evidence that the Neanderthals were actually much higher advanced than modern man with higher intelligence and a more perfectly formed body. Would there be quick acceptance or would there be resistance? Is there a line that science cannot cross over, even for Cofty?