> While I appreciate the sentiment, nearly all new knowledge goes through peer review... Only knowledge that originates in academia, and even then only a porti

> While I appreciate the sentiment, nearly all new knowledge goes through peer review... Only knowledge that originates in academia, and even then only a portion of it. > because for every important problem in academia, there's a competitor who is the best person to point out problems with the theory. While this may be generally true, it is not absolutely true. > "Holistic management of agriculture to fight desertification" is a non-quantitative science... Partially non-quantitative. Also: it'a (partially) true, but so what? > ...and falls under a very different regime from, say, people working at the state of the art in particle physics or biology. Right: one is known to be important, and the others are (at this point in time) hoped to be important (as they have been in the past).