No, they vote on it after the the top of the pecking order tells them how to vote.
Delusional.
All scientists pretty much agree on everything and this especially applies to the soft "sciences".
LOL! No, they don't.
They agree on those things that are sufficiently demonstrated only. Like relativity, germ theory, evolution theory, plate tectonics,...
At the frontier of scientific discovery, there are only open questions and rivaling hypothesis. Like abiogenesis, the origins of the universe, how to unify quantum physics with classical physics, etc
If I provide examples you'll ignore it and persist in your beliefs.
Try me.
I'm sure you can point to mistakes being made. Nobody claims the process is perfect.
In fact, peer review and journals exists precisely
because it is recognized that the process isn't perfect. And it's mostly the human ingredient that makes it not perfect.
Peer review isn't restricted to the initial review of a submitted paper where it is decided to publish it or not you know... after it gets published, scientists all over the world review it, double and tripple check it and build further upon it.
This is how science is self-correcting.
If a mistake slips through the entire thing, sooner or later it will get exposed because further research will be working upon a false framework. This is exactly what happened with Newtonian physics. It's what happens
every time progress is made, unless it consists of a brand new discovered phenomena for which no previous explanation (or even question) existed.
Yes!!! By George I think you have it finally. Experiment always trumps belief and opinion is always irrelevant.
Yes.
Peer review is irrelevant.
Peer review is how mistakes are discovered.
Without peer review, nobody would come up with additional evidence to show how a proposed idea is incorrect.
Suppose you do an experiment, draw a conclusion and publish your results.
Suppose your experiment was inadequate. Or suppose that in other circumstances, your conclusion no longer works.
How is this going to be discovered / known, if nobody else (peers) reviews your methods, your experiment, repeats your experiment or does additional experiments to further test your conclusion?
That's what peer review is.
There is no alternative for thinking for oneself. If I invent experiment and don't tell anybody the experiment STILL EXISTS.
And if your experiment is fundamentally flawed without you realizing it, how will you ever know if you don't share it with peers who might notice it?
If I create upside down flies and you ignore it they still exist. If a Peer learns something I don't know, it still real even after I don't know it. How can you not understand this? The problem is groupthink. The problem is lack of understanding of metaphysics. The problem is most scientists and most laymen are now engaged not in true science but in a religion characterized by Look and See Science.
I can't make sense of this drivel.
Why don;'t you understand that if something is shown by experiment it is real and if something isn't shown by experiment it is a belief.
I do understand that.
Which is why I said that one should not "simply believe" people on their word.
It's also why I said that the only real authority in science, insofar as there is an authority, is evidence / data.
You believe consciousness doesn't matter to "evolution"
No. That's a bad formulation.
Instead: I don't believe that it DOES matter to evolution.
And the reason I don't believe it, is because there is no evidence to support such.
but to you "evolution" is just another sacrament or belief to be adopted to show your devoutness.
No. I accept evolution as the best explanation for the origins of species due to the overwhelming evidence in support of the idea.
It's the same reason why I accept relativity, germ theory, plate tectonics, atomic theory, etc.
It doesn't matter if this "theory" is founded in experiment or not because you believe in it.
False. The fact that this theory is founded in experiment and data is the ONLY reason I accept it.
OK, look. Your post isn't really all that bad. There's a lot of truth to your words but the problem is you can see none of the truth in my words. Sure, science in practice is often a collaborative affair and every individual is capable of misthinking experiment or its results. But you don't seem to understand committees and groups are FAR MORE LIKELY to misthink something than an individual. Juries convict or exonerate because a strong personality can take over or a strange idea might get accepted by all. Intelligence levels plummet when people get together. We live in a strange new world where nobody seems to understand anything going on and lobbyists tell Congress what laws to pass. Data are continually being misconstrued and misinterpreted. Peers will not defend their beliefs and suppress data that don't conform.
Your comparisons between science and lawmakers, are invalid.
Science (or peer review) isn't done by popular vote or based in "opinion".
Meanwhile millions coming out of schools can't even read and millions more think Peer review is part of the scientific method
Peer review is factually part of the scientific method.
So much so that science can't be done without it.
If nobody communicates their results, then nobody can double check their work nor can anyone build upon it to progress further (either by building upon it further, or by showing it to be incorrect, or both).
All this is part of peer review.
There isn't even such a thing as "evolution"
Keep dreaming.
The fact that we know species change does not prove they evolve.
/facepalm
That's like saying "just because things fall down does not prove that they fall down".
Evolution
literally is about species changing over time.
Calling it "evolution" is simply a circular argument. Calling gravity a "theory" doesn't mean we understand anything about it.
Please learn some basic scientific jargon and what the term "theory" means in science.