Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
Mark,
Of course it's pro science why shouldn't it be.
The whole point of peer review is bring about scientific debate and hopefully consensus.
Consensus can be very slow. It took 50 years of debate and research before continental drift was finally accepted by geologists.
Steven
|
How true...however in the case of continental drift it was a matter of a non geologist's ideas being disregarded by geologists simply on political grounds. His ideas didn't fit in with the accepted paradigm and because he was an outsider, that made his ideas even more heretical than they otherwise would have been. Even though the answers were staring straight at them in the face, it took all that time for geologists (mind you, fresh minds to the problem, not so much the entrenched view) to figure out that he was right in the first place. They had to go out and do the exploration work and experiments to see what was correct. Even then, it was hard for the orthodoxy to come to terms with the new paradigm. Now it's an accepted fact within the geological community in particular and the scientific community in general. Much the same as evolution, even though (in both cases) we still have a lot to learn.
The ideal of peer review is to bring about debate and consensus, but all too often it's one entrenched view and its adherents being insufferably staid and doing its utmost to prevent new ideas from gaining acceptance.