Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Well okay, sort of...

Tom,

I'll have to concede something here, but I'm not sure it's your point exactly. Fact is, peer review isn't even as old as you say it is. It has only been universal (or nearly so) in the sciences for maybe 60 years, since around WW II. Einstein's famous 1905 papers were not peer reviewed in the modern sense. (The editor evaluated them, but no one else did.)

Nevertheless, over the last half century, peer review has indeed become the hallmark of scientific rigor. As I indicated in my original post, almost every practicing scientist is likely to dismiss any bit of science unless--or until--it has been peer reviewed. There are exceptions--scientists trust the work of other scientists and so may accept a conclusion tentatively before a peer-reviewed article is published--but eventually the article will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, or dismissed. These days, peer-review is a near-universal arbiter of scientific rigor. Even today however, there's disagreement over how important and effective it is. The process really isn't that well understood, in cognitive terms.

Still, I don't accept your larger point. The historical examples you gave are from a time before formal peer review was widespread--but that fact doesn't negate your point. What does, I think, is that for every Galileo many thousands of snake-oil salesmen have stood on street corners selling ointments made from a piece of the one true cross, or the Virgin's spit, or whatever, all claiming some breakthrough that helps line their pockets. You cite the rare, historic exceptions, and I concede those. But unless you place Kait's Clever Little Clock and the Belt's foils or whatever in the category of Galileo's insights--brilliant scientific advances unfairly disparaged by their contemporaries, which history will stand in awe of a hundred years and more from now--your point, however true narrowly (or even broadly) just doesn't apply to the present case. Their products are neither great scientific advances disparaged by narrow-minded scientists nor--as the other common argument goes--tentative, phenomenological advances that will someday be confirmed by (presumably, peer-reviewed) science. They are more akin to medieval "remedies" made from Virgin piss, IMO (though, as I made clear in a different post, I'm suggesting no ethical equivalence, only a logial and tactical one). I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it.

Best,
Jim


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Schiit Audio  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
  • Well okay, sort of... - Jim Austin 04:29:09 03/28/07 (0)


You can not post to an archived thread.