There's an interesting debate going on, centered around the "arsenic-eating" life that was recently discovered by a team of NASA-based researchers. What's interesting to me is the issue of peer review versus blogging. To me, "peer review" means, not only that the science in the article has been checked out by "those in the know," but also that the article in question has been scrutinized to make sure it doesn't contain any heresy against the Currently Accepted Dogma of the church of Science. It's funny how in the comments to the above referenced article, a lot of commentators equate non-peer-reviewed blog posts with the so-called "religious right." One commentator, echoing the general sentiment, says, "Considering blog comments aren't peer reviewed, why don't these blogging scientists just adopt a flippin' religion and base their critique on that?"
It's funny how scientists regard anyone who dares to question peer-reviewed studies as unworthy of the public's attention. Anyone who questions the accepted "truth" is automatically a crackpot, or a religious nut, or a dimwit. Mainstream science, for all its purported interest in discovery and advancement, only allows certain questions to be asked, and only certain theoretical avenues to be explored, only by people who have been deemed to be "knowledgeable," which really means people who adhere to accepted dogma. Anything and anyone else is heretical, and needs to be censored or censured.
No comments:
Post a Comment