Our science isn't Peer Review it's Consensus Review.
Admittedly not a lot of difference, but it does create blind spots and lead to the consensus making some really stupid "howlers".
Their was a consensus during the period from 18?? to 1908 that powered heavier than air flight was impossible so reputable science magazines as late as 1907 were printing "learned" articles "debunking" the claims of heavier than air flight and actively ignoring the writing of other scientist that were developing modern aeronautical equations and discarding the writings of two very RIGHT brothers for years after they went to flying thier aircraft.
The consensus ignored the Wright brothers flying machines for nearly 6 years refusing to even go see the machines fly at county fairs and picnics because it was impossible and wasn't worth the trouble of checking.
Another Howler caused by Consensus Review was the Mapemba Effect.
It wasn't until the late 1960's and early 1970's that thermodynamics discovered and admitted that Hot water will freeze before cold water.
The consensus for 100's of years before the "discovery" of the mapemba effect was that *cold* water froze first so anything that showed otherwise was discounted and ignored.
Because of consensus review thermodynamics was "BLIND" to the very real problem of hot water freezing before cold.
The consensus said it wasn't possible so for hundreds of years it was missed or ignored. Never mind a few simple test would prove it and every icecream maker on the planet often proved it with the making of icecream.
Another Blindness was Ball lightning the general consensus was that ball lightning was impossible so eyewitnesses were ignored and all scientist who developed theories of it existance was ignored.
All reports were written off as being at best a "mental" problem possibly caused by the mind being altered by the intense forces involved with a nearby lightning strike.
Yet Another "BLINDSPOT" and "HOWLER" was the light show above the clouds of Thunderheads.
Because the consensus couldn't believe the reports starting in the 1940's or imagine any way it would be possible all papers, reports and research that discovered or predicted such effects were discarded by the consensus.
We have consensus review not peer review and while the difference is subtle it does on occasion lead to real problems with what we call science.
howard melton
God bless
EDITED "Changed "hot" to *cold*" somehow reversed the words when I was writing it up the Mapemba effect vs consensus sentence.
Admittedly not a lot of difference, but it does create blind spots and lead to the consensus making some really stupid "howlers".
Their was a consensus during the period from 18?? to 1908 that powered heavier than air flight was impossible so reputable science magazines as late as 1907 were printing "learned" articles "debunking" the claims of heavier than air flight and actively ignoring the writing of other scientist that were developing modern aeronautical equations and discarding the writings of two very RIGHT brothers for years after they went to flying thier aircraft.
The consensus ignored the Wright brothers flying machines for nearly 6 years refusing to even go see the machines fly at county fairs and picnics because it was impossible and wasn't worth the trouble of checking.
Another Howler caused by Consensus Review was the Mapemba Effect.
It wasn't until the late 1960's and early 1970's that thermodynamics discovered and admitted that Hot water will freeze before cold water.
The consensus for 100's of years before the "discovery" of the mapemba effect was that *cold* water froze first so anything that showed otherwise was discounted and ignored.
Because of consensus review thermodynamics was "BLIND" to the very real problem of hot water freezing before cold.
The consensus said it wasn't possible so for hundreds of years it was missed or ignored. Never mind a few simple test would prove it and every icecream maker on the planet often proved it with the making of icecream.
Another Blindness was Ball lightning the general consensus was that ball lightning was impossible so eyewitnesses were ignored and all scientist who developed theories of it existance was ignored.
All reports were written off as being at best a "mental" problem possibly caused by the mind being altered by the intense forces involved with a nearby lightning strike.
Yet Another "BLINDSPOT" and "HOWLER" was the light show above the clouds of Thunderheads.
Because the consensus couldn't believe the reports starting in the 1940's or imagine any way it would be possible all papers, reports and research that discovered or predicted such effects were discarded by the consensus.
We have consensus review not peer review and while the difference is subtle it does on occasion lead to real problems with what we call science.
howard melton
God bless
EDITED "Changed "hot" to *cold*" somehow reversed the words when I was writing it up the Mapemba effect vs consensus sentence.