Originally Posted By: redewenur
Blacknad: "What evidence do you have that, in real terms, science is all that objective?"

Are you serious?


Red,

Yes I am serious. Peer review IMO is flawed. The idea that nothing can be taken seriously until it is peer reviewed - and what gets peer reviewed is not straightforward - if you disagree with the consensus you will find it harder to get your work 'out there'.

How is this objective? This is often about editors of scientific publications and their reputations and own predilections.

You only need to look here to see what kind of reception you will get if you don't agree with certain people's take on things. How many anti-anthropomorphic global warming people have left in disgust at their treatment? How are scientists any more objective than anyone else when it comes to such matters?

In some cases 'peer review' has more to do with 'peer pressure' than anything else.

You cannot confuse the objective methodology of science with its overall subjective application within society.

Now I really do expect a kicking. Is telling scientists that peer review is flawed the same as running into a mosque and telling the Iman's that Mohammad was a pervert? Which one am I more likely to come out alive from?

Blacknad.

Last edited by Blacknad; 04/25/07 09:16 PM.