|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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. :-) 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.
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.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |