Politics and science; is science being corrupted? (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 14, 2010, 18:00 (5395 days ago) @ David Turell

David,
> > 
> > My point about peer review is still something to consider; you'll *never* get rid of bias. 
> 
> Then why enter a large dose of it by committies of people who think the same? In a sense Kuhn warned of this.-No offense to Kuhn, but anyone with a basic understanding of how humans operate should see this clearly. -I don't really think this is broken: the ideas still get out and if they're good, they do their job, and everyone who worked to hold back the ideas look awful, those that came up with them get a career boost. No one ever said this would be easy!-In ALL fields, you'll get people at the top that made their lives on their ideas, and they don't want them being challenged. We don't have the right to tell CEO's to adopt ideas they don't agree with or like, or to not use their power to fight ideas they don't like, and the modern role of journalism is to help people get around blocks of power like this. In most cases Peer Review does its job exactly as intended--how many stories of it working properly do you hear? None. Just like most corporate CEO's actually do their job well, the same goes for the majority of those in Peer Review. I agree that the entire process should be transparent to the public, but I don't see *any* reason that the machine is so broken that it doesn't work.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"