Peer Review Does Not Define Science
Chad Orzel,
Uncertain Principles,
Aug 12, 2008
I agree with Chad Orzel. While peer review is important and can be useful, it is only one instance of a more generalized methodology, one which, specifically, requires that for something to be 'scientific' it must subject ideas to tests by experience that are both transparent and replicable. As Orzel says, "We shouldn't be restricting science to refereed journals, we should be trying to spread it as widely as possible." What makes something science is not the authority with which it is printed but the rigor with which it is tested. Not everyone agrees, though.
Today: 3 Total: 110 [Direct link] [Share]
