By Brian Carnell

Thursday, March 28, 2002

The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a nice story this week about the role of peer review in distinguishing between scientific and pseudo-scientific claims.

The story profiled two people who went around peer review to get their ideas out. Pierre-Marie Robitaille is a radiologists who spent $125,000 to take out a full-page ad in the Sunday New York Times arguing for his peculiar theories of the universe which he claims peer reviewed journals will not touch because his ideas "are simply too opposed to current thought."

Creationist Stephen Meyer took the argument against peer review to its logical conclusion asking the Washington State Board of Education to alter its definition of science to include his religious ideas. Meyer wants his state to adopt a ludicrous definition of science that would not be limited by "naturalistic" assumptions (i.e., it would allow for supernatural events).

I have yet to see anyone suggest how this could possibly be systematized. It is certainly possible to jettison the "naturalistic" assumption, but you have to throw out any sort of predictability as well. The claim that my computer works based on the predictable function of electrons is bunk -- it is just as likely, under a nonnaturalistic science, that God is supernaturally intervening to make my computer work.

Which does not mean that all is well in the world of peer review. Peer review is hardly perfect, but it is certainly the best system available. If anything the major defect with peer review is that reviewers are not critical enough and too much lousy science ends up in journals anyway.

Source:

Peer review is stifling for scientists on fringe. John Mangels and Scott Stephens, Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 26, 2002.

Discuss (0 Replies) | Printer Friendly