Yeah, I've seen that crackpot list before, and of course most of it is just too funny. But things like that are really no excuse for just blowing off serious qu

Yeah, I've seen that crackpot list before, and of course most of it is just too funny. But things like that are really no excuse for just blowing off serious questions about current scientific thinking, which may of course potentially point to real problems with that thinking. In other words, you can't just label something "crackpot" primarily because it's convenient to do so. As far as peer review goes, I'm trying to keep an eye on the whole "open peer review" thing, or whatever the proper name for that is. It of course has its own problems, but I haven't been particularly impressed with the current system for several decades now. And I don't think that it's really a matter of "it fails once in a while", but rather that it has problems which may be fairly pervasive. I've seen estimates that as much as 50% of what gets published these days as peer-reviewed science may be basically just fiction in the end, and I might put the percentage higher than that.