From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Wed Jul 02 2003 - 15:28:52 EDT
I absolutely agree with Tipler. It is absurd to claim that because a work
hasn't been peer reviewed therefore the work is not worth considering. I
have felt the sting of the reviewer who thinks that if you don't think like
him, then you don't get published. Eventually I got those articles
published--in peer-reviewed journals. But I don't think automatically
peer-review confers truth either, e.g. cold fusion, spinning balls
affecting gravity and the like.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Ted Davis
>Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 8:27 AM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: religion, peer review and science
>
>
>Aiming to get us back onto religion/science (the purpose of this
>listserve),
>I propose that we comment on the following article by physicist Frank
>Tipler, author of *The Physics of Immortality*.
>
>http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf
>
>I have my doubts, incidentally, about certain details in the story he
>includes (from Michael Shermer) concerning a Newton scholar. If I can
>substantiate my doubts after checking with some friends, I'll fill them in.
>
>ted
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 02 2003 - 15:29:14 EDT