"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cv9v63lp69pc5snhpips99oouegfbo3vom@4ax.com...
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:59:36 -0700, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:86ju631fi4490n7q3gurl1eattb5cbsj9q@4ax.com...
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:43:01 -0700 there was an Ancient Codebreaker
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
The whole system of peer reviewing is inefficient regardless
who reviews or NOT
Because you say so?
Because he has a vested interest in it being so.
But it still isn't.
Science is the MOST successful field of endeavor humans have every
practiced.
Science isn't science without peer review.
But that's only part of the process.
Peer review isn't what determines scientific fact - it's just a stage
the process goes through. Even publication doesn't make it scientific
fact - it just unleashes it on the scientific community for them to
try and repeat the work for themselves, to confirm, refute or refine
it.
If it works, it works.
That's all.
Which is exactly what I said.
.
