I wish to point out that the principle of peer review is not just a social convention that we use to conduct science. Peer review is useful in preventing bad science, and also in providing a mechanism to construct a useful scientific dialogue, but the reason for it is more fundamental than that. Peer review is an expression of one of the fundamental aspects of the philosophy of science. One of the fundamental driving forces behind science is the concept that everything we observe is independent of the observer. What this means is that if one person observes something then someone else should (or must) be able to observe the same thing. If not then it can not be considered scientific. Another way of putting it is that no one is a privileged observer that has access to knowledge and data that no one else does. This comes from a belief that the universe will always act in a consistent manner and that it does not arbitrarily change the fundamental laws of existence for any one person. In this sense the principle of peer review is an expression of the fundamental belief that the universe is rational, consistent and does not give special status to any one person. Thus no one can be right because they are a scientist (or a preacher, or a teacher, or a politician, or a philosopher etc.), but they are right in as much as what they say is in line with reality. Because any one person can be mistaken in what they observe we provide a safe guard in the form of peer review. Thus the principle of peer review is both a statement about a scientists fundamental understanding of how the universe works and a check to make sure that the universe, and also we ourselves are honest and correct in what we have observed. From the internet.
Posted on: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 03:51:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015