On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:18:06 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:43:58 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:


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



One should keep in mind Galileo and his peers in the Catholic Church.

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner


That's not what I would call scientifiic peer review.

Even if they did finally remit - 300 years later?

Well, better late than never.

Richard

Problem is that even scientific peer reviews are conducted by people.
People's motives are not always pure. I ran a number of design
reviews and research reviews back in the day. I brought in outside
consultants from industry and academia with intent of keeping things
objective with a diverse set of viewpoints and backgrounds. There
were times when it was a challenge to keep them from becoming witch
hunts. Think room full of large egos with quivers full of darts.