NASA scientist finds evidence of alien life(edited)

joe six-pack said:

There is a difference between Scientific Method and a peer review.

This is Scientific Method: please refer to this definition.

In short it is the process of forming a hypothesis and either proving or disproving that hypothesis. This is what the researcher does. A peer review follows similar steps, attempting to prove or disprove the results. Obviously if it can't be proven, by default the researchers claim is therefore disproven.

Duh? I think we are talking about apples and oranges.

Hoover claims to have gone through the process above. He claims to have proof that I haven't seen or examined yet. Until I see the research and review the evidence myself, it is neither "true" nor "untrue." It is theoretically possible that Hoover's claim is true, even though he did not originally complete the peer review process.

Naturally, I have to assume the research is going to be proven false. But I don't know that for factual truth. I heard the peer review process is going to be completed on these findings, to clear up the controversy, which is what I was referring to by disproving the hypothesis.

It's like schrodinger's cat, until I look in the box--it's neither true nor untrue.

Click to expand...

danarhea said:

Because Hoover claims to have gone through the process doesn't mean he has. He skipped the publishing step. Part of the publishing step is peer-review before publishing, which was not done 4 years ago, when the paper was initially presented to the Journal of Astrobiology. It was not done either, 4 years later (NOW), when the paper was presented to the Journal of Cosmology, which has NO peer-review process at all.

Click to expand...

danarhea said:

If you want to claim that this is OK, then I will submit to you that Emmanuel Velikovsky's theories are also correct, because they were printed.

Click to expand...

joe six-pack said:

I find nothing that contracts your statement.

No, my claim is not that the hypothesis is proven fact; this background information on the in-complete review process is something I didn't have when I posted this. Instead, my claim is simply that I do not dismiss the possibility that it is true, despite rumors. It is theoretically possible that these finds are real, but now not very likely it seems.

Click to expand...