37
edits
Changes
no edit summary
:::There is evidence that journals ''do'' decline publishing ideas that go against the currently-popular paradigm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]
:::There is evidence that journals ''do'' decline publishing ideas that go against the currently-popular paradigm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]
I don't deny it. But Ed seems to be assigning some sinister motive on the part of the journals - suppressing new results - which isn't necessarily true. There is a reason why the currently-popular paradigm is currently popular - it's because that explanation is the one that, in the opinion of the majority of researchers in that field, best fits the available data. Any findings which run counter to the paradigm need to have exceptionally good evidence to support them. A journal won't want to run a "The current paradigm is completely wrong" paper if there's any chance that it will turn out that the paper is wrong, because that reflects badly on the journal's editor. In summary, the peer review system isn't perfect, but Ed's wording there presents a highly biased point of view (which is, of course, contrary to conservapedia rules). [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 11:28, 2 May 2007 (EDT)