On 6-12-2009 23:27, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 6-12-2009 19:42, Darren New wrote:
>>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>>>     Having engaged in the peer review process, I don't have too 
>>>> strong belief in its effectiveness. I haven't really thought of an 
>>>> alternative, though.
>>>
>>> I think it's effective for ruling out the obviously-flawed 
>>> experiments. Combine that with the requirement for repeatability and 
>>> you get science.
>>
>> In my experience that is not always the case.
> 
> Fair enough.  Certainly *eventually* it will get overthrown, like after 
> the original discoverer has died. :-) 

That is why I am dead against people living significantly longer than we 
do now ;)

> Unlike certain other fields of 
> endeavor in which it is *better* to have unreproducible miracles and 
> ignore evidence in favor of faith than it is to look at evidence 
> presented by your peers.

in science there is of course always http://www.jir.com/

> I was thinking more the "New Kind of Science" self-publication or the 
> Cold Fusion publish-first-in-the-newspapers kind of avoidance-of-error.

I knew that.

Post a reply to this message