People who run big science journals and large laboratories/institutions have to gain funding. They cannot get funding if their critics can be heard, because that would jeopardize their chances.
In order to protect themselves, they form self-refereeing monopolies that define certain ideas and bodies of
thought to be important, whether they actually are or not.
This is why when people say, "oh, stellar metamorphosis isn't published in a journal, so it can't be important", or "SM isn't real science because it is not peer-reviewed", doesn't make any sense.
That approach only works to support the status quo, and can backfire tremendously. If the status quo is wrong, then their method of preventing critics from entering their field in published arenas will do grave damage, as they will be stuck in a perpetual group think environment. They will be stuck with wrong ideas and forming careers on falsehoods. That is worse than being wrong.
No fresh ideas? No idea maintenance? No criticism?
It will die and rot.
Without new growth, there can be no progress.
Astrophysics at the cross roads, either accept that stars are simply young, hot planets, or reject it and be forced to engage in torturous mental gymnastics to support an outdated belief system.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Helpful comments will be appreciated, but if the user does not want to address the issues being presented they will be ignored. This is a blog dedicated to trying to explain how to make sense of the discovery that planet formation is star evolution itself, not a blog for false mainstream beliefs.