View Single Post
  #15  
Old 04-14-2016, 09:17 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 19,680
Truly famous names can sometimes get bunk published. Often bunk that's not really up their main area of expertise. Such as Penrose on consciousness or Pauling on vitamin C.

I'm not sure how examples of this support the OP's desire that his particular flavor of "Eminent scientist both supports bunk and gets it published ... a little" be accorded extra respect.

Science publishing is ultimately a human social phenomenon. It's not purely social as in Facebook "likes". But the social aspects of peer review and noteworthiness are things which detract from the truth value of the totality of a given journal's output, not contribute to it. Said another way if you're looking at two articles, one by a big name and one by a nobody, it's more likely the nobody has done the better research and found the better truth.

IOW, bunk remains bunk even if it's popular and celebrities like it. Whether those are entertainment celebrities or science celebrities.

The fact a broken calendar has been right twice in a century is no reason to decide that broken calendars are good Oracles.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 04-14-2016 at 09:20 AM.