In response to:

The Dishonorable Liberal Order of Regulatory Scientists

AZYaateeh Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 10:08 AM
They have actually proved that "peer reviewers" are less rigorous with papers that support the reviewers' view. They demonstrated this by submitting fake papers, with identical methodology but varying results, to a number of peer-reviewed journals. "Myths of Skepticism" is pretty much a sine qua non of having a right to an opinion on the philosophy of science.
Alex_P Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 4:38 PM
Doug3370 Wrote:
"And the truth emerges triumphant."
In theory.
As you so aptly noted, "Peer reviewers are mortal and fallible."
Doug3370 Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 11:06 AM
Peer reviewers are mortal and fallible. But they're also ambitious and skeptical. The system doesn't allow out and out fraud to prosper. Frauds get exposed, and the whistleblowers make a name for themselves. Simple innocent errors also get exposed. And the truth emerges triumphant.

I got an email from a reader yesterday that went something like this: "Hey, the American Cancer Society says you're full of it on the link between breast cancer and abortion. Trust me I'm an expert and a scientist, and you're being less than honest. So do us all a favor and shut up and stick to finance."

To which I reply: "Hey, if you're an expert and scientist why are you citing a lobbying orginization like the American Cancer Society? Thanks for proving one of the points in the email/hate mail column."

And the point was: ...