|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Re: The tradition of peer review... posted by TomLarson on March 27, 2007 at 19:14:01:
And what about other "scientific" theories that existed before an organized peer review. Like Phlogisten theory? For every one that you know of, because they proved more or less right, there were countless others that were utter rubbish (like using mercury to treat syphillis or leaching), even though they perhaps seemed reasonable at the time.Peer review serves a very valuable purpose to keep fantastic claims in check. Without it science progresses actually at a much slower pace because it becomes much more difficult to sort out competing claims. If the US patent office still had to assess each and every claim of a perpetual motion machine they would probably never patent anything else. Now they simply refuse to see any claims of perpetual motion because it is frankly not possible.
Peer review does not prevent all bogus research from getting through but it definitely limits the flood to a trickle. Guys like Einstein and Feynman still had to produce convincing arguments (mathematical that is) for their work in order to have it accepted and strove to gain the acceptance of their peers because an idea needs widespread acceptance to survive. The fact that you don't understand this says that you don't understand what the process is all about and why it is vital.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: The tradition of peer review... - morricab 04:23:21 03/28/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
