On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:47:44 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:15:58 -0600, Lew Hartswick
wrote:


Dersu Uzala wrote:
and I know that in the

scientific world, accolades go the scientist that over-turns the accepted
paradigm.

Jut where have you heard that?
From the time of Galileo to the present I think you have
proven wrong in that many time over.
...lew... cross posting deleted


The disconnect is timeframe. Accolades for "wrong-thinkers"
who turn out to be right are posthumous.

Peer review is a good system for weeding out irresponsible and
deliberately deceptive research, but it is as prone to imperfection
and error as government elected by a majority because peers (and
voters) often have self-interest agendae.

There are few institutions more political and bureaucratic than
universities and academia.


In reality, Don, that's exactly what makes the peer review system
work well.

Your professional reputation is at stake.
Can't get much more self-interest that that...

So are the reps of the reviewers. New "discoveries" (like cold
fusion) certainly should withstand (and be debunked if appropriate) by
peer scrutiny. But sometimes the peers have their own axes to grind,
like years of research and credibility that could be threatened by a
bona fide new discovery or insight.

I'm not knocking the system at all, nor taking either side of the
warming debate.