09-01-2016, 02:13 PM
secur wrote: Â "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. Â Consensus science is where the likes of Vongehr and Gill want to take us. Â Nothing could be more destructive to the creativity and progress of the discipline. Suppose "100 scientists against Einstein" Â (or a thousand) decided the issue. Â We would all be flat earthers or we would be gone.
There's a rabbinic proverb: Â "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. Â Consensus science is where the likes of Vongehr and Gill want to take us. Â Nothing could be more destructive to the creativity and progress of the discipline. Suppose "100 scientists against Einstein" Â (or a thousand) decided the issue. Â We would all be flat earthers or we would be gone.
There's a rabbinic proverb: Â "Be wary of the man that nobody likes; be even more wary of the one that everybody likes."