posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 11:24 AM
Just as any new "all-encompassing theory-that-surpasses-all-other-theories", I'm pretty hesitant to accept this guy at face value. The fact that
his reviewers are all laypeople, that he has no peer-reviewed articles that I could find makes me think that he's just another person looking to get
rich off of people like us, the people who like to look at non-mainstream science.
I'm sure that someone will later mention that "of course he has no peer-reviewed articles, mainstream scientists don't want to lose their cushy
government grants when they're proven wrong." While that is true, to an extent, science is usually openminded about new theories: as long as that
new theory can stand the test of logic, and has experimental data to back it up. Einstein's relativity, and later quantum mechanics, both shook the
foundations of physics in their time, and both were subjected to minute scrutiny by scientists hoping to find flaws in the theory. They were also
both accepted into the mainstream of scientific thought because they withstood the test of this close scrutiny.
One may also bring up the fact that academic, peer-reviewed, journals would be loath to accept articles based on Mr. (Dr.?, I couldn't find much
about him on the site) McCutcheon's theory. This is also true. There is a lot of politics surrounding the largest academic journals. There are,
however, a lot of other venues, that still subject the articles to the rigors of peer-review: Smaller journals, online journals, mailing lists, even
conference presentation papers are all ways that relatively unknown authors can make their voices heard.
I'm not saying that there's nothing to this guy's ideas, in fact I'm planning on seeing if a library can find me a copy sometime soon. I am
saying, though, that I'm very wary about people promising revolution.