<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: A team of Italian scientists have reviewed the earlier faster-than-light neutrino results and have rejected them.	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/a-team-of-italian-scientists-have-reviewed-the-earlier-faster-than-light-neutrino-results-and-have-rejected-them/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/a-team-of-italian-scientists-have-reviewed-the-earlier-faster-than-light-neutrino-results-and-have-rejected-them/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:03:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Chris Kirkendall		</title>
		<link>https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/a-team-of-italian-scientists-have-reviewed-the-earlier-faster-than-light-neutrino-results-and-have-rejected-them/#comment-32394</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Kirkendall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:03:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://behindtheblack.com/?p=13310#comment-32394</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This is what pure Science ia all about - always questioning conventional beliefs &#038; theories, but also a healthy dose of skepticism of new theories that would contradict current theory. No one should ever be afraid of new ideas - but at the same time, a new idea or theory, no matter how &quot;exciting&quot; or intriguing, has to be tried &#038; tested, challenged independently, by numeorus unconnected researchers before we can declare its validity. Contrast this with the IPCC covering up data that contradicted their pre-conceived notions of man-made global warming. That is NOT science - you cannot just discard or ignore data you don&#039;t like. But in this case, it&#039;s refreshing to see real Science working the way it&#039;s supposed to...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is what pure Science ia all about &#8211; always questioning conventional beliefs &amp; theories, but also a healthy dose of skepticism of new theories that would contradict current theory. No one should ever be afraid of new ideas &#8211; but at the same time, a new idea or theory, no matter how &#8220;exciting&#8221; or intriguing, has to be tried &amp; tested, challenged independently, by numeorus unconnected researchers before we can declare its validity. Contrast this with the IPCC covering up data that contradicted their pre-conceived notions of man-made global warming. That is NOT science &#8211; you cannot just discard or ignore data you don&#8217;t like. But in this case, it&#8217;s refreshing to see real Science working the way it&#8217;s supposed to&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
