Not a standard in science (^^^Unscientific) since any new idea could be rejected because it is not peer reviewed. No matter its merit. Peer review is used to validate the censorship because of fixed viewpoint discrimination. It is not peer reviewed, so i don't have to consider, only show bias. Under that scenario, a new technology for warp drive in space shuttles could be rejected because it is not peer reviewed and therefore unscientific. We don't have to consider your cure for AIDS because it is not peer reviewed and is therefore unscientific. Peer review restrictions can be the catalyst for dogmatists wishing to squash any new ideas that come along.
Wow! You have that backwards. New ideas in the sciences are introduced through the process of peer review. So I can see that the rest of this post is going to be pure nonsense.
''A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'' Max Planck.
That may have been the old way. Though it was not even true in Planck's day. Do you know how long ago he said that? That is one of the reason that scientists use peer review today. Peer review as it is used now is a relatively new process. Einstein was from the pre-peer review era. Back then one presented ideas at conferences. Now we use peer review because publishing is international. Conferences are still held but wit peer reviewed literature the conference comes to you.
The magical procedure takes precedence over the validity of the material. Truth takes a back seat to formalities.
You really have no sense of irony. You are the one that believes in magic.
Which says nothing about whether the material is valid or not.
Actually it does. The peer review process is rigorous, and nothing that an amateur would want to go through. And even with that many ideas are wrong. If a person avoids peer review the reason that he does so is because he fears that he is wrong.
Think of peer review like football camp and the preseason. Rookies are put through their paces there. It is a very strenuous period for even pros. The average man on the street would be out in an hour. And even with that the number that make it to the team is about half that are invited. The best peer reviewed journals can have a rejection rate as high as 90%.
Peer review does not guarantee that an ideas is right. But it does guarantee that it is no jaw-droppingly idiotic. Guess what you rely on?
They can and have written books that are peer reviewed. Darwins Black Box was peer reviewed and so was Signature In The Cell. Any paper submitted for review can be rejected outright, and most ID papers are dead on arrival. Then the same come around and assert ID is unscientific because it is not peer reviewed. It is a catch 22.
Not really. Darwin's Black Box did not go through anything like the review that a single article woudl have. Let's see what the "reviewers" said about Behe's book:
"
Peer review controversy[edit]
In 2005, while testifying for the defense in the
Dover trial, Behe claimed under oath that the book had received a more thorough
peer review than a scholarly article in a refereed journal,
[20] a claim which appears to conflict the facts of the book's peer review.
[21] Four of the book's five reviewers (Michael Atchison,
Robert Shapiro,
K. John Morrow, and
Russell Doolittle) have made statements that contradict or otherwise do not support Behe's claim of the book passing a rigorous peer review.
Michael Atchison
Atchison has stated that he did not review the book at all, but spent 10 minutes on the phone receiving a brief overview of the book which he then endorsed without ever seeing the text.
[22]
Robert Shapiro
Shapiro has said that he reviewed the book, and while he agreed with some of its analysis of origin-of-life research, he thought its conclusions are false, though the best explanation of the argument from design that was available.
[23] Had the book been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and this comment had appeared, the review provided by Shapiro would have forced the conclusions regarding
intelligent design to be changed or removed.
[23]
K. John Morrow
Morrow criticized the book as appalling and unsupported, which contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.
[24]
Russell Doolittle
Doolittle, upon whom Behe based much of his discussion of blood clotting, described it as misrepresenting a simplified explanation he had given in a lecture, and presenting a fallacious creationist miscalculation of improbability by omitting known options,
[25] which also contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.
[26]
Darwin's Black Box - Wikipedia
Most ID papers are dead on arrival because there is no "there there". They are poorly written articles by people that are out of their area of expertise.
And Signature in the Cell does not appear to have been peer reviewed at all.
As a rule books are not "peer reviewed" if they were almost all would be rejected because a niggling flaw, that would be objected to in an actual scientific journal peer review, would result in the book being sent back for endless corrections.
Actual peer reviewed articles tend to be as dry as toast. They are not fun to read for most people. Books are less rigorous. They are not in the same class at all.
