Thomas Kuhn revisited (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, November 14, 2011, 00:50 (4737 days ago) @ xeno6696

The real reason you balk at peer review is the fact that ID is not considered a scientific but a philosophical proposition. Of course, you know this already--but the "censorship" that ID writers tend to be exposed to is because of the kinds of papers they submit to. They don't submit these papers to journals of philosophy as would be correct, they try to submit them to technical journals. If you submit a paper about ID that actually creates an experiment that can advance your argument, THEN you deserve a shot at a technical journal. Until then, submit them to the philosophical journals where they belong.

Peer review should exist at a minimum to prevent THIS kind of "science."
[EDIT] The above comment was for a deleted portion which may/may not be pertinent, but it discussed that the DI likes to submit papers for the purpose of couching philosophy as science, knowing full well that the general public often doesn't have enough philosophical awareness to realize what's going on. THAT is what peer-review should be used for.
[EDITED]

You forget what I have written in the past. ID is not the issue. When I was an active author in the medical literature, there was NO peer review. A journal had its editor and he reviewed. Things were much smaller then and grantsmanship was not a major issue with 'how many articles for tenure' as a force to contend with. Peer review is group fascism. I oppose it on philosophic grounds. Let the reader beware of garbage. If he is knowledgeable and well-read he will spot the junk. Too much junk and the editor is fired.

Glad you are back to debate with.