The "Climate Etc." blog of Dr. Judith Curry has a post on the fundamental problems with peer review. Instead of adding a comment there, I offer the following:
Scientific fundamentals like peer review are broken because science has not been self-correcting, but figuratively adding epicycles to planetary circles, for a long time, so that incompetence proliferates instead of the expertise that is advertised and expected. Materialistic scientism (dogmatically opposed to religion and, by false logical extension, to a higher meaningful reality than the merely physical) is leading science on a dead-end street; the "undirected evolution" paradigm is a failure, but that is largely unknown, especially among self-proud, cloistered academics. I am already showing the way to correct science--by identifying and focusing upon the definitive evidence that disproves key scientific errors of understanding. All scientists have to do is be willing to have even their favorite theories and supposed understanding undone, when the definitive facts say so. Science should be organized learning, first , last and always, not memorized, ritualized explanation.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
Recent Responses to Consensus Defenders
Followers may be interested in recent comments I have fielded from climate consensus, or greenhouse effect, defenders.
Here is my latest response on my "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" page.
Here you can find my response to another inane critic, on Climate Etc (although you will have to look for my name).
You can see those dismissing me are clearly incompetent, obviously because they refuse to take any fundamental criticism of the consensus seriously. If they are competent otherwise, they cannot be trying very hard to make sense on this subject.
Here is my latest response on my "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" page.
Here you can find my response to another inane critic, on Climate Etc (although you will have to look for my name).
You can see those dismissing me are clearly incompetent, obviously because they refuse to take any fundamental criticism of the consensus seriously. If they are competent otherwise, they cannot be trying very hard to make sense on this subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)