Peer reviews are not perfect.

Despite any flaw in the peer review system, it does have a huge history of spotting error before research papers get published.When the subject matter is incapable of being subjected to peer review, the result is science that barely hangs on to the title.Sasquatch, or Big-Foot has been sighted on numerous occasions.   But fleetingly, from long distances.In such circumstances, peer review can neither confirm, nor deny, the existence of this creature.Sometimes you have to opt to believe, or disbelieve, from personal prejudices and not from any neat and tabulated science project.Sometimes the peer review team get it exactly right:  but fail to spot the significance.Friedrich Meischer identified and isolated DNA in 1869, and this was a very significant breakthrough in understanding the mechanics of the evolutionary process - among other things.But mainstream science was convinced that the secret of life would be unearthed as some function of proteins, and for nearly 100 years continued to toil down the wrong path.Which means that you probably need to give more value to validated alternative theories than you usually do.The most spectacular failure of the peer review system occurs when the members of the team are taken in by an elaborate practical joke.In this case, it took over 40 years before it dawned on anyone that the skull of the "missing link" had been manufactured and planted to dupe unsuspecting researchers.So, one must always be alert to the fact that peers do not always spot that the evidence does not bear close scrutiny.View the list »
When scientists discover new things, their peers try to ensure that the results are valid.

Secular newsletter

Agnostics tend to be followers of the scientific method, which allows them to change their minds over what they believe as new - and sometimes better - information is unearthed to show why an existing belief is probably untenable,

Related topics

Advertisement

Peer review is the process where noted specialists in a scientific field look at the work of researchers and pass judgement over the validity of the findings. And most of the time, this process weeds out honest mistakes some researchers make.

But the system is not infallible. And more to the point: not compulsory.

View the list
  • The most spectacular failure of the peer review system occurs when the members of the team are taken in by an elaborate practical joke.In this case, it took over 40 years before it dawned on anyone that the skull of the "missing link" had been manufactured and planted to dupe unsuspecting researchers.So, one must always be alert to the fact that peers do not always spot that the evidence does not bear close scrutiny.
  • Sometimes the peer review team get it exactly right:  but fail to spot the significance.Friedrich Meischer identified and isolated DNA in 1869, and this was a very significant breakthrough in understanding the mechanics of the evolutionary process - among other things.But mainstream science was convinced that the secret of life would be unearthed as some function of proteins, and for nearly 100 years continued to toil down the wrong path.Which means that you probably need to give more value to validated alternative theories than you usually do.
  • Despite any flaw in the peer review system, it does have a huge history of spotting error before research papers get published.When the subject matter is incapable of being subjected to peer review, the result is science that barely hangs on to the title.Sasquatch, or Big-Foot has been sighted on numerous occasions.   But fleetingly, from long distances.In such circumstances, peer review can neither confirm, nor deny, the existence of this creature.Sometimes you have to opt to believe, or disbelieve, from personal prejudices and not from any neat and tabulated science project.
  • Sometimes, announcements are capable of being rejected without going through the peer review process.The Korean Central New's agency once broke the story that archaeologists in Pyongyang had discovered a unicorn's lair.   When pressed, they admitted that the artifacts had been misplaced, and withdrew the claim.For reasons not clearly understood, the North Koreans needed the unicorn lair to support some claim they had made against their Southern neighbors.   The need for the claim went away, and so did the unicorn.So - if an announcement seems to be highly unlikely, hang on a while and it might turn out to be unfounded.
  • Proof that the abominable snowman, or Yeti, does exist was supplied and peer review invited.Suspicions were roused when it was noted that rather than a research team making the case, it was a Tourist Agency.The review team came to the conclusion that there was too much personal investment involved in the affair, and stated that they were unconvinced.It may be that Yeti is alive and well, but the science community is prepared to wait until more solid evidence is discovered.
  • Some opine that the City of Nazareth was not substantially occupied until after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.When the ruins of a Roman bath house was discovered within the city boundaries, archeologists dated it as being of they type in use from 0 AD to about 1250 AD, and the actual date of construction could be anywhere in that range.Carefully avoiding peer review, the Nazareth Tourist Board still proudly claim that it was built in 0 AD, and the city was fully developed at that time.Peer review has a hard time of checking validity if the evidence is kept well away from it. 
  • Some scientist go to great lengths to get their works peer reviewed:  but only by peers sympathetic to a point of view who are guaranteed to pass favorable judgment.The discovery institute is manned exclusively by creationist scientists, and they are tasked with finding evidence that supports a literal interpretation of the old Testament.So, they have produced numerous papers - including one that T. Rex had such huge teeth because it lived on coconuts - and all have been peer reviewed.The peers are also invariably creationist scientists, so the rest of the scientific community often ask why the institute goes to such lengths to gain respectability, and yet denies the independent verification that would grant them such esteem.When we are told that a paper has been validated by the peer review system, it sometimes is worth pondering upon who the peers actually are.
View the list

, San Clemente Agnosticism Examiner

Bill Robinson was a devout Christian until he lost his faith and spent five years on the "angry-atheist" path. He eventually found that agnosticism not only gave a world view that really respects the opinions of others, it offers a valid personal philosophy that is as profound as it is deep. ...

Advertisement

Today's top buzz...