>> 'Not in science. Peer review and the imprimatur of a "reputable researcher" cannot grant extra authority to a study, because there is no authority in science

>> 'Not in science. Peer review and the imprimatur of a "reputable researcher" cannot grant extra authority to a study, because there is no authority in science -- to the degree that a reliance on authority is a logical error.' > So wait... first, peer review is not a part of science? It's part of how science is practiced, but it is not part of science's fundamentals -- the latter honors only direct evidence -- see below. > Second, a paper having passed peer review tells us nothing about whether it's flawed? Well, since I never said that, I don't need to defend it. Instead, I will refer you to the motto of the Royal Society, science's oldest professional society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba Quote: "Nullius in verba (Latin for "on the word of no one" or "Take nobody's word for it") is the motto of the Royal Society. John Evelyn and other Royal Society fellows chose the motto soon after the founding of the Society.[1] The current Royal Society website explains the motto thus: 'It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.'[2]"