But here it is in National Geographic:
Even for scientists, the scientific method is a hard discipline. Like the rest of us, they’re vulnerable to what they call confirmation bias—the tendency to look for and see only evidence that confirms what they already believe. But unlike the rest of us, they submit their ideas to formal peer review before publishing them. Once their results are published, if they’re important enough, other scientists will try to reproduce them—and, being congenitally skeptical and competitive, will be very happy to announce that they don’t hold up. Scientific results are always provisional, susceptible to being overturned by some future experiment or observation. Scientists rarely proclaim an absolute truth or absolute certainty. Uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge. More [plenty more].
And this in an age of citation stacking, unfounded authority, and nothing-to-see-here, folks, just keep moving retractions! Oh, and yes, fake journals. But I digress.
If you still subscribe to National Geographic, why do you? The pix are great, but they’ll end up on line for free. (If you want to support the photographer, support the photographer. But don’t support a barrage of nonsense just to support her.)
To keep up with peer review problems, you will likely find Retraction Watch a help.
Note: The only really intractable problems in human life, other than old age and death, are the ones we won’t admit to, the ones we drown in that kind of rhetoric.
Follow UD News at Twitter!