Originally posted by RicS:
So all the scientific theories etc that have been rejected by peer review processes such as (in no particular order):
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Einstein's Theory of Relativity
Plate Techtonics
Too many medical advances to count.
Have not been major advances in science?
Peer review is not even a successful way of detering fraudulent work. It seems to be a total failure by pretty much any criteria you wish to use yet for some reason it still engeanders significant support. I have the feeling that it is so because it supports the status quo. After all you cannot have just anyone on the street coming up with brilliant scientific thought if, heaven forbid, they do not even have a degree in the field. And far worse, think of all those scientists who, not having had an original thought themselves, may actually have to carry out worthwhile scientific endeavour.
Richard
Amen!
Add to your list the Quantum Hall effect that was initially rejected by Physical Review. Somewhere I have read that Nature has rejected more manuscripts that later led to Nobel Prizes than the number they have accepted that also led to Nobel Prizes. I will not be surprised if this is true!
