It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Nor have I mentioned Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar who showed that stars above a certain size would eventually collapse to form black holes at a time when others did not believe they could really exist. The lambasting he got from Eddington almost ended his brilliant career. Then there was Joseph Goldberger who showed that Pellagra is a disease caused by dietary deficiency but for political reasons his opponents continued to claim it was infectious. Others on my list are William Harvey for blood circulation, Doppler for light frequency shifts, Peyton Rous for showing viruses can cause cancer, Boltzmann, Dalton, Tesla, Alverez, Margulis, Krebs, and on and on. All of them had to fight against resistance before their ground breaking work gained the recognition it deserved.
There are many more who have merely had an important paper rejected. In fact it is hard to know the real extent of the problem because only the most important stories get told in the history of science. My guess is that these people represent the tip of a large iceberg most of which lies hidden below the threshold it takes for historians to take note.
InTheLight
reply to post by moebius
I suppose if scientist's findings/papers are to be deemed to have merit purely based on peer review then it's no wonder we haven't gotten very far.
Klassified
InTheLight
reply to post by moebius
I suppose if scientist's findings/papers are to be deemed to have merit purely based on peer review then it's no wonder we haven't gotten very far.
The peer review system isn't perfect. It definitely has its problems. The biggest of which is unrealistic expectations far and above what it was meant to do and be. But it's the only system we have presently, and overrall, it at least endeavors to weed out the bad science, and publish the good. It just doesn't always work the way, even those inside of it would like, but it does have its merits, along with its downside.
Unfortunately, the peer review process also brings into it ego, personal individual motivations, and perhaps prejudices. There seems, in my witness, that there is no tolerance for straying beyond the set, known scientific theories of the time - no acceptance of thinking outside that box, so to speak, unless more than one scientist jumps on board.
Klassified
reply to post by InTheLight
Unfortunately, the peer review process also brings into it ego, personal individual motivations, and perhaps prejudices. There seems, in my witness, that there is no tolerance for straying beyond the set, known scientific theories of the time - no acceptance of thinking outside that box, so to speak, unless more than one scientist jumps on board.
I understand what you're saying. Early this year, I did a thread on peer review. You might find it interesting. The thread didn't garner much fanfare, but I learned some things from the responses it did get.
Faith, Fantasy, and the Protean Peer Review Process
Klassified
reply to post by InTheLight
Unfortunately, the peer review process also brings into it ego, personal individual motivations, and perhaps prejudices. There seems, in my witness, that there is no tolerance for straying beyond the set, known scientific theories of the time - no acceptance of thinking outside that box, so to speak, unless more than one scientist jumps on board.
I understand what you're saying. Early this year, I did a thread on peer review. You might find it interesting. The thread didn't garner much fanfare, but I learned some things from the responses it did get.
Faith, Fantasy, and the Protean Peer Review Process
moebius
ps:
And then I've had this totally crazy idea. What if there was a price for unusual/original research, where the most promising one of the more "deviant" papers/publications would be selected for more thorough review, verification, replication? Nah, just kidding