SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Remember when we discussed Rocks Request Rejection issue back in May? The discussion was nothing if not spirited.
Andrew Snelling, who got a PhD in geology before joining Answers in Genesis, continues working to interpret the canyon in a way that is consistent with his views. In 2013, he requested permission from the National Park Service to collect some rock samples in the canyon for a new project to that end.
...
The National Park Service sent Snelling's proposal out for review, having three academic geologists who study the canyon look at it. Those reviews were not kind. Snelling didn't get his permit. Snelling sued.
Well It turns out the guy gets to harvest his bag-o-rocks because the the National Park Service has decided its easier to give a few rocks than take the religious flack.
That lawsuit was withdrawn by Snelling on June 28. According to a story in The Australian, Snelling withdrew his suit because the National Park Service has relented and granted him his permit. He will be able to collect about 40 fist-sized samples, provided that he makes the data from any analyses freely available.
Further he promises to publish his findings in a peer reviewed journal. Perhaps even his own journal. Perhaps even his own peers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:05AM (1 child)
No, what is today called "peer review" is a recent thing, there is absolutely no evidence for its utility. It seems to only act to enforce whatever the prevailing thought is (and thus impede all progress).
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/ [michaelnielsen.org]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ [nih.gov]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:47AM
No, there was always peer review. It's just that previously, the peer review happened after publication, by other people saying what they thought of those ideas.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.