for reasoned discussion of unorthodoxies and anomalies
and publishes the peer-reviewed Journal of Scientific Exploration.
HOW CAN ONE JUDGE, WHETHER SOMETHING IS OR IS NOT GOOD SCIENCE?
I discuss that, with numerous case studies, in my book:
Something that is "good science" is not necessarily right---science has often been wrong, it proceeds by trials and errors. Subjects on which many people have done some very BAD science might still have something worth looking into. The fact that there have been many hoaxes or frauds about something doesn't necessarily mean it's all hokum---
fraudsters, hoaxers and con-artists are out to fool people, not to educate them.
Personally
I happen to believe that Loch Ness monsters are real animals
waiting to be identified; but I don't insist that everyone else
should share that belief, and I know I might be wrong about it.
For the evidence that Loch Ness monsters are real,
and why so few people know about that evidence, see my LOCH NESS PAGE
There are a number of other contemporary unorthodoxies
that I think might be vindicated, at least partly or in some fashion --
almost certainly, that there are some non-Doppler cosmological redshifts
not unlikely, there is some real phenomenon in what has been called "cold fusion" perhaps some "psychic" effects will come to be recognized
as no less normal than placebo and psychosomatic illness.
One current unorthodoxy almost certain to be vindicated is that
University of Illinois Press 2001
