09-01-2016, 02:13 PM
secur wrote: "This is an example of what we might call 'community-based peer review'. They published the paper, then the community 'peer-reviewed' it for them, decided it shouldn't be in the journal."
I was going to stay out of this, but on reflection, I find this disturbing. Consensus science is where the likes of Vongehr and Gill want to take us. Nothing could be more destructive to the creativity and progress of the discipline. Suppose "100 scientists against Einstein" (or a thousand) decided the issue. We would all be flat earthers or we would be gone.
There's a rabbinic proverb: "Be wary of the man that nobody likes; be even more wary of the one that everybody likes."
I was going to stay out of this, but on reflection, I find this disturbing. Consensus science is where the likes of Vongehr and Gill want to take us. Nothing could be more destructive to the creativity and progress of the discipline. Suppose "100 scientists against Einstein" (or a thousand) decided the issue. We would all be flat earthers or we would be gone.
There's a rabbinic proverb: "Be wary of the man that nobody likes; be even more wary of the one that everybody likes."