Indeed. It's a hard balance. I think peer review _generally_
works well enough and it's necessary because the Sciences are
expensive and somebody besides money coming in from new
University students supporting University Science Depts needs to
support their ongoing efforts. So business and government
interests tie into it... and as nice as pure science would be...
somebody has to pay for it all. And... people who pay... usually
want things to go a little more their way. That's where
competing in the Sciences is _very_ useful because hopefully the
good stuff comes out somewhere between it all. And I believe it
does. == I think this is why I'm critical of excessive
agreement among Science advocates. Consistency is a red-flag
warning to me, wherever it's coming from. Why is there such
consistency? Is consistency truth? Sometimes it is. But when
there's lack of dissenting opinions, I get cautious. It doesn't
mean consistency means something bad is going on. But I try to
scrutinize excessive consistency very carefully just the same.
== Still I think that, in general, the process works well
enough. == I think that's what keeps me loving Science and all
the odd things it takes to make it work: When it works, it works
GREAT! But as fellow Science enthusiasts it's up to us to stay
educated and discerning and really question what comes our way.
They may have the ability to do the Science but it's our job to
decide whether it's worth accepting. But skepticism is my bias
smile emoticon == Good good. My focus tends to be on the
hypothesis/conclusion pair and sample size. If I see small
sample size, I get skeptical and if the hypothesis/conclusion
seems off, I look at competing ideas as well as the scientists
who did the Science to see if there's something hiding in there.
==
