Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (19871)	1/28/2008 10:09:15 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Good, so in that case why did you disparage peer review? The reason people avoid peer review is that process uncovers significant short comings which they don't want to change, because their theory falls apart. There are indeed examples in the history of science where innovative thinkers discovered solutions which were difficult to get accepted, because the dominant scientific view was rather opposite. One that comes to mind relates to the geology of the PWN, where the effects of large floods from the last ice age had significant impact. Geology had swung from Noah's global flood to gradualism, and any return to floods was laughed at. But good science won the day, and Geology now knows that while the earth is very old and some processes are very gradual, there are also catastrophes, especially locally. BTW, some Creationists have made significant contributions to science regarding catastrophes, even while being totally clueless about the big picture.