Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Lead poisoning from eating game shot with lead core bullets?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GunHawk" data-source="post: 1928609" data-attributes="member: 108159"><p>I guess I'm just now realizing that scientists are also human (obvious sarcasm?)! You make some salient points, but I think some journals are reputable, others not quite so much. Articles are often accepted for reasons other than the merits of the science, often when new statistical techniques are employed, but overall I think it is better than the non peer reviewed stuff. However, over time the science is augmented/corrected by new research and we arrive at something reliable. </p><p>#1 rule of science: Assume nothing is going on unless you have overwhelming evidence (not proof) that there is. </p><p></p><p>Then, after careful analyses, you may say something like, " <strong>with the evidence I have </strong><em><strong>now</strong></em>, I'm at least 95% sure that what I think is going on is actually true, but I acknowledge that, with another set of evidence I may (or may not) reach a different conclusion, using the same methods.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GunHawk, post: 1928609, member: 108159"] I guess I'm just now realizing that scientists are also human (obvious sarcasm?)! You make some salient points, but I think some journals are reputable, others not quite so much. Articles are often accepted for reasons other than the merits of the science, often when new statistical techniques are employed, but overall I think it is better than the non peer reviewed stuff. However, over time the science is augmented/corrected by new research and we arrive at something reliable. #1 rule of science: Assume nothing is going on unless you have overwhelming evidence (not proof) that there is. Then, after careful analyses, you may say something like, " [B]with the evidence I have [/B][I][B]now[/B][/I], I'm at least 95% sure that what I think is going on is actually true, but I acknowledge that, with another set of evidence I may (or may not) reach a different conclusion, using the same methods. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Lead poisoning from eating game shot with lead core bullets?
Top