There is much to be said about ‘peer-review’, in fact much has already been said. It is a mainstay argument used by the AGW warmists. Their particular variety of peer-review has come under serious and IMHO, deserved criticism.
This article is a commonsense look at the subject.
It would be wise to evaluate peer-reviews as to their credibility rather than accept them at face value.Related articles
- Thoughts on peer review (medrants.com)
FideCogitActio : "Omnis per gratiam" fidescogitactio @ gmail . com
…or else!
Though it is seldom addressed, the line between peer review and peer pressure is razor-thin. Interestingly, one of science’s strongest “selling points”, as scientismatics would have it, is that science is driven by professional group-think.
Allow me a small burst of theatrical nerdistry.
Common Man 1: What happen?
Common Man 2: Someone set up us the borg-mind!
Scientismatic: Hello, gentlemen, you have no time to decide. Folk-theory resistance is futile. ALL YOUR BELIEFS ARE BELONG TO US!
View original post 491 more words
The GOLDEN RULE 