I certainly understand how a non-scientist, who has not participated in the review-process, or a scientist who has a bad experience would find the process of peer review to be biased, but I think the reasoning is flawed and usually due to a lack of understanding of how scientists come up with a theory, test it through observation and experiment, and subject it to peer review. The process is not always fast, but is markedly better and less biased than political or religious “laws” or “theories” because scientific principals are NOT based on some individual with “authority” or a mandate from God saying it is so, but rather on tests and peer review. I think I stated this well in the response to this article on Thought Mesh today. See if you agree. I certainly feel this was an underlying thesis in much of the writing that I have seen from myriad respected scientists, including the late Carl Sagan (see my notes on his book I recently read, Science as a Candle in the Dark, where he debunks and challenges myth and pseudo-science in favor of the Scientific Method.)

Similar Posts:

• An Intelligent Article on the Dover Case
• Nice Day!
• Science As A Candle In The Dark, Pt. 2
• Ben “Dover”
• Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit