3 ms·
If paper in question becomes fodder for the mainstream media (or at least the mainstream scientific media) then there is no reason why they should not have to d
by beezle 8y ago
If paper in question becomes fodder for the mainstream media (or at least the mainstream scientific media) then there is no reason why they should not have to defend their theory/arguments/speculations publicly in a less than formal peer reviewed forum, especially one of fairly high regard in that subject area.
- onhn 8y agoThere is a good reason: we should not be passing judgement on the validity of scientific work based on informal discussions.
- beezle 8y agoDisagree. As just one example, the Solvay conferences of the 1910s-20s. Much of QM was developed by informal discussions, both written and verbal. Likewise, most of the initial challenges to scientific papers/theories/experimental results happens informally and only later will there be a peer reviewed counter (if the original has not between withdrawn or modified before). Reference the OPERA ftl neutrinos for a recent example.