|
A pseudoscientist rejects any sort of review, simply because it means their nonsense won't get the airing it so richly doesn't deserve. Pseudoscientist don't practice science, they practice quackery and as such should be ignored. That some actual happen across valuable scientific insights at times is just a random chance event, more a case of luck than good science.
The fact the guys who did this study use complex systems mathematics would immediately make them suspect in the eyes of the EU crowd. It'd be a conspiracy, according to them. The maths isn't important etc etc. This is precisely why peer review is there...to sort the wheat from the chaff, or in their case the fecal matter from the rest of the crop.
Now...peer review...The idea of a market place for work has some merit but it also has a lot of bad points as well. It could give scientists a means to get papers seen that normally aren't because of the variability of the peer review process between journals etc. But it could also make it almost impossible for young researchers to get a voice because they could get drowned out by their more experienced colleagues. Plus, as Stuart reiterated, you may also get a lot of garbage getting through that otherwise wouldn't.
|