|
Hi Craig and Steven,
I get both of your points of view. The peer review process underlies scientific advancement and what we know today is what we get. Many pseudo scientific claims are obviously pathological.
However, you can't always pin down the results of research as pathological science in today's terms. Take the neutrino experiments again. The second round of OPERA data seems to indicate they travel faster than light. The ICARUS team give reasons to doubt the superluminal neutrinos. Just how much data is needed for verification? Is something else still being overlooked?
In the end, let's say the neutrinos don't travel at c+, do we rate the OPERA results as pathological? Were they too fast to make conclusions? But then they did open up to peer review. Or, let's say further experiments continue to confirm c+ speeds, do we then rate the experiments as revolutionary? The pendulum could swing either way.
Extraordinary claims can seem to be outside mainstream science yet be closer to reality. But, as you say, in the end the peer review process should sort it out if not at present but then at some time in the future.
Regards, Rob
|