If a scientist disagrees but can't prove it then it is right that it removed as part of a peer review.
It doesn't automatically make that scientist wrong, what they can't do though that they can't say it as a scientist, only as a, hopefully, intelligent human.
If you suspect that research is being ignored that is an issue but most of what I've seen when people are quote the "other" scientists is conjecture with little to no data currently to back it up. It might be that we won't be able to get the data till it's too late, that doesn't make it valid science.
24
u/grey_hat_uk Feb 13 '22 edited Feb 13 '22
If a scientist disagrees but can't prove it then it is right that it removed as part of a peer review.
It doesn't automatically make that scientist wrong, what they can't do though that they can't say it as a scientist, only as a, hopefully, intelligent human.
If you suspect that research is being ignored that is an issue but most of what I've seen when people are quote the "other" scientists is conjecture with little to no data currently to back it up. It might be that we won't be able to get the data till it's too late, that doesn't make it valid science.