Joined: May 2002
|Quote (msparacio @ Feb. 03 2003,20:06)|
|The current role of peer-review in the sciences is a relatively recent phenomena (post 1930s). |
Yeah, and just look how non-productive post 1930's science has been.
|One could argue the current role of peer-review is an outgrowth of the "scientist myth" where even hypotheses making is a calm, collected, methodological process void of any creativity or speculation.|
One could make that claim, but it would fly in the face of the innumerable creative hypotheses (continental drift, transposable elements, and endosymbiosis, to name a few) that have been proposed and ultimately accepted via peer-reviewed literature.
One could also ignore the bevy of pseudoscience that the 20th century's fascination with science fiction has engendered, and which the peer-review process, despite its imperfections, is particularly good at weeding out.
I'm not saying that ID is necessarily pseudoscience (well to be honest, I think it is), but even stauch IDists will admit that for every good speculative hypothesis that should be looked at seriously, there are tons of bad ones that don't deserve the time of day. That's the real point of peer-review, though you may disagree with how it's applied.