Surely this was before the peer review process.
Originally Posted by folkhemmet
Look, I'll admit the system is flawed--what system isn't?--but there are also quite a lot of examples of peer review approving things that radically changed science. And once a mechanism for plate tectonics was found, it was, after all, accepted, and it only took a few decades.
What's more, peer review is useful for weeding out things like, oh, cold fusion. Peer review is useful for encouraging scientists to find more evidence, surely a good thing. Peer review is useful because it is a clear system for determining what goes in journals, helping to eliminate charges of favoritism or elitism, though admittedly still open to the "they laughed at Galileo" argument, which is immune to all defense.
Further . . . what are you going to replace it with?
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"