Suppression of Evidence

Feasibly.

Generally speaking in most fields, even scientific ones, you get a paradigm. It becomes unfashionable to step outside it for a while because everyone is steeped in the paradigm and find alternatives to sound ridiculous. Historically some theories we accept today were rejected as bunkum for years before they caught on. It's entirely feasible that some of our assumptions about how evolution works aren't quite on point and will need refinement, and a paradigm shift might completely alter the way we approach it.

>>2939153
>>>/sci/
>>>/x/

File: SecSci.jpg (653KB, 2383x427px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 2383x427px

>>2939174

No. The way academia works basically prevents that from happening. In order to stay employed, you need to continually do research and publish. And in order to get the funding to carry out research, you generally need to do research that is new or interesting in some way. That means in general, people are willing to put forward alternative theories and new claims because it makes them look better; the important thing is to be able to back up your claims at least somewhat feasibly. For an example, look at those recent papers talking about human artifacts in the Americas 300,000 years ago, or a Homo sapiens skull found in Morocco of about the same age. Despite diverging from the current paradigm and a bunch of problems with those assertions, both papers were published in an incredibly prestigious journal because the arguments were made well enough.

The reason /x/-tier garbage like Pyle doesn't get published academically isn't because of suppression, its' because there's no credible evidence for it.

>>2939752
>human artifacts in the Americas 300,000 years ago
It's 130,000 years ago, anon. More importantly, it's possible evidence of post-mortem trauma akin to tools, not the tools themselves. Once we find some tools, or even a fossil, then and only then we can say that with some certainty.

>>2939787
Shit my bad. I must have misremembered because I was talking to a friend recently who kept saying the Moroccan skull makes the North American date more probable.

And that's basically my point about why the article had problems with its assertion. The authors admit that there are no formal tools found at the site. The wear they're associating with animal processing (which they also don't explain, because they say butchering didn't happen) could have easily been caused by natural processes. They basically have a site with some bone breakage and stone wear that can both be natural, and are arguing that they're evidence of human habitation fairly weakly. Yet, Nature still published that article, despite it seriously going against what's understood about evolution and the peopling of the Americas. If anything was going to get suppressed, it was that article, and it wasn't.

File: IMG_0705.gif (37KB, 467x240px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 467x240px

>>2939647
I've heard this uninformed garbage before.

From a Chick Tract. No respected academic or scientist uses it. Fuck off Creationist.

>>2939752
Yeah, Joe Rogan had some weirdos on his show and I was amazed by what they said, so I googled it and the evidence they were proudly presenting simply did not exist. Like they find a layer in one location and then claim there was a continent-wide firestorm, but there is no evidence of more than completely normal local events.

>>2939153
What's UTS?

>>2939153

No, that would be impossible. "Mainstream science" isn't some shadowy cabal of people who decide what is and what is not "science", it's the sum total of all wok done by everyone who "does science". If you found good evidence that evolution didn't happen, you would win a nobel prize and be world famous, you wouldn't be "suppressed" because there is no group or body with the power to "suppress" you.

Just look at those clowns at the Christian """Science""" Monitor, they publish their laughably stupid and manifestly fraudulent bullshit all day every day without ever being "suppressed", the fact that the like of Ken Ham and Ray Comfort are wealthy men with packed public speaking calendars rather than in jail proves there is no "suppression" in science.

>>2939752
/thread.