How much can we trust science?

[Augustus]

That you keep saying Egyptology use Peer Review, is simply wrong, because philology, as well as arts, are non-scientific subjects, which don’t require it to be peer reviewed.

Sorry, but you are the one who is simply wrong on this point.

History journals use peer-review. Humanities journals use peer-review. This is standard academic practice and is not limited to the sciences.

For example:

 

[cladking]

Unlikely since most ancient civilizations believed the stars were simply points of light on a giant globe (or dome) surrounding the Earth. Nothing even remotely similar to our idea of a galaxy existed until we got knowledge of the true depth of space. And that was after the invention of the telescope.

This is what we believe based on much later beliefs.

I believe there was extensive scientific knowledge based on a different kind of science that employed observation and logic like animals use instead of observation and experiment as we use. This belief explains a great deal more evidence than the belief that ancient people dating from 40,000 BC to 2000 BC were exactly like us. In any case the ancients left ample evidence of a great deal of knowledge far beyond "mere" myth and polished stones.

 

[cladking]

Some galaxies are visible to the naked eye. Are there any mentions telling them apart from stars in old texts?

Not to my knowledge, but there are references to the Milky Way and planets according to Egyptologists.

I would hardly be surprised if we find that they were aware that other galaxies existed or that they speculated that all stars existed in galaxies.

 

[Polymath257]

Not to my knowledge, but there are references to the Milky Way and planets according to Egyptologists.

I would hardly be surprised if we find that they were aware that other galaxies existed or that they speculated that all stars existed in galaxies.

The references to the Milky Way and to planets can be explained by the idea that the ancients looked up and kept records of what they saw.

The Milky Way, on a dark, clear night, looks like a milky band across the sky. The planets are apparently star-like but move in the sky from night to night in a way that ordinary stars do not. Essentially every civilization has been aware of these simply because they are *obvious* to anyone looking up in the right conditions.

So, yes, if people looked up, they would have noticed the planets (as point sources of light) and the Milky Way (as a dim, milky swath across the sky).

That is *very* different than being aware of our galaxy as a whole or being aware of planets as spherical bodies (although the moon and Sun were considered to be planets originally).

I would be *very* surprised to learn they were aware of other galaxies or even in our galaxy *as a galaxy*. Sure, they could have been aware of a fuzzy place in the sky that is the Andromeda Spiral. In the southern hemisphere, they would have been aware of the Magellanic Clouds. But being aware of those *as galaxies* that are separate from the Milky Way that is another object of the same sort? I would very highly doubt it.

 

[Polymath257]

This is what we believe based on much later beliefs.

Which? That galaxies are separate? yes, indeed.

That the ancients believed in a sky that was a dome or a sphere? Just read some of the ancient texts. They had NO concept of a deeper space. Their concept of the stars were point sources of light on a dome arching over the Earth.

I believe there was extensive scientific knowledge based on a different kind of science that employed observation and logic like animals use instead of observation and experiment as we use. This belief explains a great deal more evidence than the belief that ancient people dating from 40,000 BC to 2000 BC were exactly like us. In any case the ancients left ample evidence of a great deal of knowledge far beyond "mere" myth and polished stones.

Such as?

They were certainly able to look up and record their observations. This allowed them to track the known planets in the sky and make some basic observations. They noticed some patterns in these motions. We have records from about 25,000 years ago suggesting someone kept track of the phases of the moon.

But I have not seen any evidence of any knowledge that would be impossible to obtain from simply looking up and recording the observations. Nothing 'special' in that.

 

[Deeje]

FYI, my husband has recently been treated for cancer, had the first robotic operation of its type in france, followed up by an intensive daily course of radiotherapy. Now he will live to see our children grow rather than die a painful death in a few years. So please dont preach your aluminium hat fears to me.

I'm truly sorry that you both have had to go through that. I have sat with two very dear friends who both died from their cancers. One went the orthodox route and had many rounds of chemo and radiation, only to be told that it was actually killing her quicker than the cancer, so they virtually told her to go home and die. Her final weeks of life were a nightmare for her family and friends, and she died unrecognizable....not from the cancer but from the treatments.

The other one opted for more natural therapies and the rest of her life was not spent with her head in a toilet and no hair. The cancer caught up with her at the end, but there was only two weeks of palliative care at the end and she still looked like herself. I would choose the second option any day. Who said you have to wait to die in agony anyway? Isn't euthanasia a more humane option? Why is that not offered?

In fact, one can end their own life simply by refusing to eat or drink. No one can force you to live if you choose to stop suffering and have no hope of recovery. That is an option my husband chose and we supported him. His disease was progressive and incurable, so he decided when it was time to go.....who could tell him it was wrong? Its called "passive euthanasia" and there is no law of God or man that is broken.

Besides which fact, cannabis is proving to be an effective pain medication and cancer fighter as more and more people are turning to it when told there is nothing more that orthodox medicine can do for them. Many have survived when doctors told them they should be dead. Not just remissions, but long term cures. The cancer has not returned. Olivia Newton John is dedicated to giving others the same opportunity that she has had. We need California's laws to be employed world wide. Guess who is standing in the way of that?

The orthodox approach is to use only one or more of the only options on offer.....chemo, radiotherapy or surgery. Each one has the propensity to offer a short term fix. But I guess for some, that is all they expect when the recovery rate long term is only about 2%.

That's up to you, i can assure you, you are in the minority.

I am by no means in a minority. Many people are so fed up with the endless drug treatments that often make their lives a misery, (especially pain killers) often creating crippling dependencies, with no cures ever offered or sought in many cases. Natural therapies get to the cause of the problem instead of just throwing a blanket over the symptoms.

Yes, some few do, they would have died anyway but they took a chance of a cure. Most make a full or partial recovery extending their life by years

OK, so would you settle for an extension of life.....or a cure if there was one?

Cancer has been continuing to take lives even up to this minute in an age where it seems that they can do everything else but hit this thing on the head. Cancer treatments have not virtually changed in decades. Do they not know what causes it? Do they not know how apoptosis (destruction of cancer cells) works naturally in a healthy body? All we need to prevent cancer in the first place is a healthy immune system, and the world we live in is robbing all of us of a chance to have one. The food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink, are all vital to life on this planet, but we are killing ourselves by polluting every one of them.

Placebo medicine is only so effective. And in most cases does no or little long term good.

Who told you that placebos provide no long term cures? You need to broaden your knowledge base if you think that orthodox medicine is in any way superior to natural medicine. Many MD's are opting out of the orthodox system because they are tired of being told what they can and cannot do for their patients.
Epilepsy in children for example....cannabis has been shown to be a superior medicine in the treatment of intractable epilepsy, yet many countries still outlaw its use despite evidence that it works. These children are forced to take ineffective pharma medications that have awful side effects, when cannabis has a high success rate with no side effects at all. Who is responsible for that do you think?

What licensed medicos are permitted to do isn't working and hasn't been for a long time. Many are defecting when they see the results of the alternative therapies.

 

[Deeje]

So change your GP.

What good would that do? They are all trained by the same system. They all suffer with the same blindness and are fed the same lies about complimentary medicine.

Your liver speaks???

It sure does, especially when it is overwhelmed by synthetic substances that were never meant to enter a human body. Like GMO's...who really knows what they are doing once inside us?

Which is why they are not licensed to practise medicine

BTW, many "synthetic" drugs are derived from natural sources, defined to remove the bad stuff.

You do understand that plant derived medicines are only allowed to be patented once you alter the chemistry or structure. If they can extract a component and synthesize it, then they can patent it....and charge whatever they like for it. But once you alter the chemistry, you lose efficacy as well. This is why many of them are less than successful. Whole plant medicine works best...as nature intended.

Do alternative practitioners need a licence to make people well? I think not, because they are free to offer real treatments that get to the cause of illness rather than being confined to "approved" drugs produced by greedy drug companies, that only have profit as their motivation. Big Pharma has a strangle hold on the practice of orthodox medicine, but in reality all they have is a strangle hold on is doctor's livelihoods and people's wallets.

An extract from the Guardian newspapers

Herbal medicines can cause kidney failure and liver damage in some consumers because they contain toxic chemicals or heavy metals,​

Hmmmm...I wonder where those toxic chemicals and heavy metals came from?
You do realize that vaccines have them too...?

And yet more people die from prescription drugs than all the illicit drugs combined. Liver toxicity will occur with anyone stupid enough to overdose on anything....even paracetamol.

So here you go...this is what causes liver disease....

"Causes
Toxic liver disease has many possible causes. Some are easier to spot than others:

Medications. Many over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription medications can cause toxic liver disease.

OTC pain relievers:

• Acetaminophen (paracetamol)
  
• Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)
• Aspirin, ibuprofen, and naproxen sodium can cause toxic liver disease if you take too much of the drug or take it with alcohol.

Prescription drugs:

• Statins
• Antibiotics like amoxicillin-clavulanate or erythromycin
• Arthritis drugs like methotrexate or azathioprine
• Antifungal drugs
• Niacin
• Steroids
• Allopurinol for gout
• Antiviral drugs for HIV infection

Chemotherapy . This common cancer treatment is another possible cause. These drugs are toxins and may stress your liver.

Herbal supplements. How could something natural be bad for your liver? In fact, some common herbs could cause toxic liver disease. Watch out for supplements that contain aloe vera, black cohosh, cascara, chaparral, comfrey, ephedra, or kava.

Chemicals and solvents. Some workplace chemicals can harm your liver. Some examples are vinyl chloride, which is used to make plastics; a dry cleaning solution called carbon tetrachloride; the weed killer paraquat; and polychlorinated biphenyls."

Toxic for Your Liver: Drugs, Chemicals, and Herbs

So should people with liver cancer receive chemotherapy?

How many prescription drugs are on that list?

 

[Deeje]

So? Surly the more information the better. As opposed to natural remedes that dont tell you they can destroy your liver.

LOL....like anything, the prescribed dose is the best one to stick to....unfortunately there is no remedy for "stupid" and many people adopt the idea that "if a little is good, a lot must be better".....overdosing on anything is a bad idea.

Do you have actual evidence of this?

Stats are available on the net....

Considering prescription drugs help cure far more people than kill then i would think the oath is intact.

Did you know that "side effects" are in fact a body rejecting a substance as harmful? Does your body lie? Drug companies do.

Pharma drugs are not designed to "cure" anyone. They are designed to alleviate symptoms so that they can keep you as a customer for life. There is no money in cures and Big Pharma makes its profits because someone pays....they don't care who. Just stand in any pharmacy and see for yourself how many drugs some people have been told they need to take. I just shake my head.....its a wonder they don't rattle when they walk.

I cannot cite one example of a prescription drug being directly responsible for a death if it is administered as per the instructions.

My husband spent more time in ambulances and hospitals because of drug side effects than he did with the neurological disease that eventually took his life. This is first hand experience....not second hand stories. Drugs are not the be-and-end-all of medical treatment....but you'd never know it. Doctors can bury their mistakes you know.

Oh, tell that to my brother in law who has suffered debilitating paranoid schizophrenia for 15 years considered to have developed due to marijuana.

Cannabis can lead to schizophrenia only if an individual had a propensity to develop it in the first place....pot heads and their recreational use, are not related to the use of medicinal cannabis.

Overdosing on any mind altering drug will lead to mental heath issues. Those who use cannabis as a way to relax in a trouble filled world certainly have no issues with addiction, since cannabis is not physically addictive....(though some can get psychologically dependent) Alcochol OTOH, is physically addictive and causes more problems for police and emergency service personnel than cannabis ever could. Yet it is freely available for people to fuel domestic violence, street brawls and the spread of STD's. Go figure...

You are talking america, i hate to pop your bubble but America counts for just 5% of the world population.

I am not just talking about America, though it does seem to have more than its fair share of drug addiction...I am an Aussie BTW.

Again america. I know that without Amilie (the french health service, majority financed by the government ) i would be dead now, (in all fairness the original doctor was responsible but pulled out all stops to fix his mistake) and my husband would be dead within a year or two.

Drugs in America along with doctor's fees are the most exorbitant in the world.....no wonder people don't want to lose their jobs.....there goes their health insurance! Who can possibly survive with no health insurance over there? I saw an old man nearing 80 years of age who still had to work to pay for his wife's medication. Imagine!
People have had to sell their houses to pay for their chemotherapy because they were too sick to work....they died and used their children's inheritance to pay for a treatment that didn't work.....they died but the drug companies made their money.....what a system!

Australia has a PBS which covers most of the common meds that people take, but some are not covered and cost thousands of dollars for a course of treatment. Drug companies do not care about anyone but themselves and their ongoing profits.....either the consumer pays or the government does....meanwhile the drug companies continue to make obscene profits. And now the pandemic is another opportunity to make big money. The race is on to see who can come up with a vaccine first....I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Oh the joy of living in this disgusting world......

 

[ChristineM]

I'm truly sorry that you both have had to go through that. I have sat with two very dear friends who both died from their cancers. One went the orthodox route and had many rounds of chemo and radiation, only to be told that it was actually killing her quicker than the cancer, so they virtually told her to go home and die. Her final weeks of life were a nightmare for her family and friends, and she died unrecognizable....not from the cancer but from the treatments.

The other one opted for more natural therapies and the rest of her life was not spent with her head in a toilet and no hair. The cancer caught up with her at the end, but there was only two weeks of palliative care at the end and she still looked like herself. I would choose the second option any day. Who said you have to wait to die in agony anyway? Isn't euthanasia a more humane option? Why is that not offered?

In fact, one can end their own life simply by refusing to eat or drink. No one can force you to live if you choose to stop suffering and have no hope of recovery. That is an option my husband chose and we supported him. His disease was progressive and incurable, so he decided when it was time to go.....who could tell him it was wrong? Its called "passive euthanasia" and there is no law of God or man that is broken.

Besides which fact, cannabis is proving to be an effective pain medication and cancer fighter as more and more people are turning to it when told there is nothing more that orthodox medicine can do for them. Many have survived when doctors told them they should be dead. Not just remissions, but long term cures. The cancer has not returned. Olivia Newton John is dedicated to giving others the same opportunity that she has had. We need California's laws to be employed world wide. Guess who is standing in the way of that?

The orthodox approach is to use only one or more of the only options on offer.....chemo, radiotherapy or surgery. Each one has the propensity to offer a short term fix. But I guess for some, that is all they expect when the recovery rate long term is only about 2%.



I am by no means in a minority. Many people are so fed up with the endless drug treatments that often make their lives a misery, (especially pain killers) often creating crippling dependencies, with no cures ever offered or sought in many cases. Natural therapies get to the cause of the problem instead of just throwing a blanket over the symptoms.


OK, so would you settle for an extension of life.....or a cure if there was one?

Cancer has been continuing to take lives even up to this minute in an age where it seems that they can do everything else but hit this thing on the head. Cancer treatments have not virtually changed in decades. Do they not know what causes it? Do they not know how apoptosis (destruction of cancer cells) works naturally in a healthy body? All we need to prevent cancer in the first place is a healthy immune system, and the world we live in is robbing all of us of a chance to have one. The food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink, are all vital to life on this planet, but we are killing ourselves by polluting every one of them.



Who told you that placebos provide no long term cures? You need to broaden your knowledge base if you think that orthodox medicine is in any way superior to natural medicine. Many MD's are opting out of the orthodox system because they are tired of being told what they can and cannot do for their patients.
Epilepsy in children for example....cannabis has been shown to be a superior medicine in the treatment of intractable epilepsy, yet many countries still outlaw its use despite evidence that it works. These children are forced to take ineffective pharma medications that have awful side effects, when cannabis has a high success rate with no side effects at all. Who is responsible for that do you think?

What licensed medicos are permitted to do isn't working and hasn't been for a long time. Many are defecting when they see the results of the alternative therapies.

Thanks.

Cancer is being beaten by science, not as quickly as anyone would like but there is progress. Before modern medical treatments cancer was a 100% killer disease even with "natural" remides. Now you can consider cancer as a word, not a sentence (the saying it takes a little thinking about)


With hubbies cancer this new robotic operation is proving to have a success rate of over 97%. Before this giant step medical intervention had a success rate close to 80%. Without intervention and or "natural" remedies the cancer always spread to the bones with a 100% death rate within 10 years.

If i had a terminal disease i would surely hope to see.my children become independent. If medicine was available to help extend my life until then i would grab it with both hands.

Of course cancer treatment has changed, my husbands case is just one example. Medical science is improving the outcomes more or less everyday.




Yes cannibals has medical benefits, it also has a very powerful downside. 15 years of paranoid schizophrenia with many more to come is a pretty drastic side effect. So please do not claim it has no side effects.

The interesting thing is that cannabis has only recently been (partially) accepted because of scientific medical research.

 

[ChristineM]

What good would that do? They are all trained by the same system. They all suffer with the same blindness and are fed the same lies about complimentary medicine.

That is a very narrow viewpoint and contains lies.

It sure does, especially when it is overwhelmed by synthetic substances that were never meant to enter a human body. Like GMO's...who really knows what they are doing once inside us?

See below

Do alternative practitioners need a licence to make people well? I think not, because they are free to offer real treatments that get to the cause of illness rather than being confined to "approved" drugs produced by greedy drug companies, that only have profit as their motivation. Big Pharma has a strangle hold on the practice of orthodox medicine, but in reality all they have a strangle hold on is doctor's livelihoods and people's wallets.

Anyone who whose practice can kill needs to be properly trained and licensed

And yet more people die from prescription drugs than all the illicit drugs combined. Liver toxicity will occur with anyone stupid enough to overdose on anything....even paracetamol

BINGO... are you blaming medical science for a patients stupidity?

So here you go...this is what causes liver disease....

Thats toxic liver disease

The highest causes of liver disease are...

Obesity
Hepatitis
Alcohol
Haemochromatosis
Primary biliary cirrhosis

Herbal supplements.

And again BINGO

So should people with liver cancer receive chemotherapy?

Do they? I would suggest you speak to a trained oncologist before getting a prognosis on that

 

[ChristineM]

LOL....like anything, the prescribed dose is the best one to stick to....unfortunately there is no remedy for "stupid"

Again BINGO, you are reality getting the hang of this

Stats are available on the net....

So no evidence then, thanks

Did you know that "side effects" are in fact a body rejecting a substance as harmful? Does your body lie? Drug companies do.

It has been know for drug companies to attempt to cheat approval but they generally get caught out. All known side effects are listed on the paper that accompanies the drug, is available online or should be told to you by a "competent" doctor. It sounds to me like you need a competent doctor.

Pharma drugs are not designed to "cure" anyone.

Sheesh. That is bull.
However some diseases cannot be cured (cannot) but medication can help alleviate the symptoms. My example, i have a thyroid problem, it is incurable and left untreated would see me in a coma. A daily levothyroxine tablet allows me to lead a normal life.

My husband spent more time in ambulances and hospitals because of drug side effects than he did with the neurological disease that eventually took his life. This is first hand experience....not second hand stories. Drugs are not the be-and-end-all of medical treatment....but you'd never know it. Doctors can bury their mistakes you know.

I am sorry for that, but consider, did you have more time with him because of the drugs? Did he live a more comfortable life than he would without the drugs?

Cannabis can lead to schizophrenia only if an individual had a propensity to develop it in the first place....pot heads and their recreational use, are not related to the use of medicinal cannabis.

So how does one know o e has a propensity to schizophrenia before the event?

Medical cannabis is refined by science to remove the harmful components. Otherwise it is exactly the same.

Overdosing on any mind altering drug will lead to mental heath issues. T

And again BINGO

Drugs in America along with doctor's fees are the most exorbitant in the world.....

Yes

Australia has a PBS which covers most of the common meds that people take, but some are not covered and cost thousands of dollars for a course of treatment.

Most healthcare systems are the same, i am afraid that economics rules

Drug companies do not care about anyone but themselves and their ongoing profits.....

Show me any commercial enterprise that doesnt care about their profits... the difference is that drug companies are forced to channel a percentage of those profits back into medical research... which despite your protestations saves far more lives than it kills

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not to my knowledge, but there are references to the Milky Way and planets according to Egyptologists.

I would hardly be surprised if we find that they were aware that other galaxies existed or that they speculated that all stars existed in galaxies.

From a cursory search, there are about 50 galaxies visible to the naked eye, but whether they show enough to be distinguished from stars I don't know - a few will be. They would not have known of the numerous planets that surround virtually all stars though. And as pointed out, the planets in our solar system are readily identifiable from stars because of their movement. And the skies were probably a lot clearer long ago for all alive then than they are now.

 

[Native]

The rotation curve of the galactic disk is NOT what showed that Newtonian gravity is wrong.

Comparing the rotation curves of the planets to the galactic one shows that Newton´s ideas of gravitational celestial motions was seriously wrong - most probably in both areas.

The rotation data from galaxies showed that there is more matter out there than we thought.

No there is not "more matter than we thought". More matter, i. e. "dark matter" was simply added theoretically to "hold the stars in position inside the galaxies". This is just a usual hindsight bias assumption and addition.

The galactic observation didn´t fit the theory so "we just add something to the universe in order to fit our theories and calculations". This isn´t science but science fiction.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Not only probably but surely wrong as historic authors and present scholars are downgrading the ancient knowledge of the ancient known part of cosmos, thus interpreting and mistaking the Sun to have created everything in our galaxy and this misconception and misinterpretation can be read all over in books and encyclopedia.

NO modern scientist claims the sun created everything in our galaxy.

I´ve never said this. I said scholars and authors INTERPRETED the Sun into a context and source of the very creation of the ancient known part of the Universe instead of interpreting the central galactic light as the creator of our galaxy.

And no ancient society even knew there *is* a galaxy.

What about doing some relevant research before you comment on this? Don´t you know the Greek mythical word for the Milky Way? All ancient cultures have observed the MIlky Way.

 

[ChristineM]

No there is not "more matter than we thought".

Evidence for this unknown please. It could rewrite cosmology and make you world famous.

Dark matter can be indirectly observed through gravitational effects

Comparing the rotation curves of the planets to the galactic one shows that Newton´s ideas of gravitational celestial motions was seriously wrong

Eh? Again, evidence please.
Note that the effect of gravity, although its attractive strength is inverse square of the distance from the object of attraction never actually reaches zero. The pull of gravity is infinite.

 

[Polymath257]

Comparing the rotation curves of the planets to the galactic one shows that Newton´s ideas of gravitational celestial motions was seriously wrong - most probably in both areas.

No more than the motion of Uranus showed that Newton's laws were wrong. And, in fact using those laws, we postulated and then found the planet Neptune.

No there is not "more matter than we thought". More matter, i. e. "dark matter" was simply added theoretically to "hold the stars in position inside the galaxies". This is just a usual hindsight bias assumption and addition.

Initially, it was a guess. It no longer is. We have several different lines of evidence for this extra matter, NOT just the rotation curves.

The galactic observation didn´t fit the theory so "we just add something to the universe in order to fit our theories and calculations". This isn´t science but science fiction.

Actually, yes it is. When something doesn't fit, the first thing science will do is see if something was neglected. That's how we found Neptune (the motion of Uranus didn't fit predictions). That's how we discovered neutrinos (the decay of neutrons didn't fit conservation of energy).

Now, in such situations, the first thing we do is ask whether there is something we missed and figure out what its properties would have to be.

Then we go and see if there is *other* evidence for that same thing. We do NOT use just the data leading to our first guess. We look for something *independent* and see if our guess fits there as well.

So, yes, this is precisely how science works.

And, in the case of dark matter, there is a LOT of independent evidence that is different than just the rotation curves. In fact, those rotation curves are not even the best evidence of dark matter (they *are* evidence, just not the best we have).

Furthermore, alternative descriptions of gravity have been attempted (MOND, TeVeS). Again, those were guesses taking the other approach: that our description of gravity is wrong. But, to fit the data, even those theories have to introduce extra matter. So, whichever way you go, there is some dark matter.

Now, if you can give a *detailed* alternative that can actually fit the data and gives precise predictions of some new phenomenon, then that alternative will be taken seriously.

Good Luck.

 

[Native]

No there is not "more matter than we thought". More matter, i. e. "dark matter" was simply added theoretically to "hold the stars in position inside the galaxies". This is just a usual hindsight bias assumption and addition.

Initially, it was a guess. It no longer is. We have several different lines of evidence for this extra matter, NOT just the rotation curves.

A guess? The term is "assumption" in the line of other hindsight bias assuptions which is added every time the cosmological scientists and astrophysicists are surpriced and don´t understand why their hypothesis is contradicted.

Actually, yes it is. When something doesn't fit, the first thing science will do is see if something was neglected.

Well, in the specific case of galactic rotation curve, the 3/4 of the fundamental forces was totally neglected and never came into any considerations before "dark matter" was added in order to conserve the contradicted 1/4 part of the fundamental forces.

And afterwards different other "dark ghosts" is added ad hoc.

 

[Polymath257]

A guess? The term is "assumption" in the line of other hindsight bias assuptions which is added every time the cosmological scientists and astrophysicists are surpriced and don´t understand why their hypothesis is contradicted.

No, the proper term is "guess". We then used other techniques to verify that guess. The bias here is quite evident and it is NOT among he cosmologists.

Well, in the specific case of galactic rotation curve, the 3/4 of the fundamental forces was totally neglected and never came into any considerations before "dark matter" was added in order to conserve the contradicted 1/4 part of the fundamental forces.

No, of the other three fundamental forces, the weak and strong are *nuclear* forces and do not work on large scales (like for galaxies).

The E&M force *is* considered where it is relevant. it doesn't resolve the problems of galactic rotation, however.

And afterwards different other "dark ghosts" is added ad hoc.

Nope. You got it completely wrong.

 

[gnostic]

History journals use peer-review. Humanities journals use peer-review. This is standard academic practice and is not limited to the sciences.

You do realise that what are published in historical journals are mainly publication of research, interpretations and commentaries on history, by the modern historians and historiographers?

Unless there translations of small contents of inscriptions, fragments, some historical records, such journals rarely published complete volumes of translated histories written by historians of the times.

Translations of large primary sources are not suitable for articles in journals. These translations are often published in book format or collection of books.

These translations are often done without peer reviews.

Most often book publishers don’t have peer reviews, and editing are done by publishers’ editors who may have no knowledge of languages of ancient or medieval sources; they would only edit the translations, not the original source materials.

For me personally, I preferred to read translations of ancient or medieval sources, eg Thucydides, Herodotus, Xenophon, Polybius, etc, than to read modern historians’ own commentaries, analysis, etc.

That just me. I preferred to read things or myself. It is the same with reading literature of myths, folklores, religious scriptures, etc, (eg Iliad, odyssey, tragedies, Edda, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, etc) I preferred to read the available translations, and not opinions, analysis or commentaries by modern authors.

 

[Augustus]

You do realise that what are published in historical journals are mainly publication of research, interpretations and commentaries on history, by the modern historians and historiographers?

Unless there translations of small contents of inscriptions, fragments, some historical records, such journals rarely published complete volumes of translated histories written by historians of the times.

Translations of large primary sources are not suitable for articles in journals. These translations are often published in book format or collection of books.

These translations are often done without peer reviews.

Most often book publishers don’t have peer reviews, and editing are done by publishers’ editors who may have no knowledge of languages of ancient or medieval sources; they would only edit the translations, not the original source materials.

For me personally, I preferred to read translations of ancient or medieval sources, eg Thucydides, Herodotus, Xenophon, Polybius, etc, than to read modern historians’ own commentaries, analysis, etc.

That just me. I preferred to read things or myself. It is the same with reading literature of myths, folklores, religious scriptures, etc, (eg Iliad, odyssey, tragedies, Edda, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, etc) I preferred to read the available translations, and not opinions, analysis or commentaries by modern authors.

Not sure what this has to do with your false claim that, unlike sciences, humanities don't use peer-review.

Scholarly journals, be they scientific or non-scientific, use a formal peer-review process.

Books, be they scientific or non-scientific, don't use a formal peer-review process.

If your point is books don't use peer-review why make the argument that science uses peer-review and the humanities don't?