Gary F - The peer review process has been around since humans began looking for approval. That's where your dishonesty comes in. It's just that ELITIST scientists have decided check their own work within this ELITE COMMUNITY. Simple breeding of scientists into this elite group is all it takes to join.
Monkeys can't breed with horses and have offspring. ELITE Science gets caught up in their own husbandry (they manage their own crops of scientists).
It's simple self-imposed evolution of science.
Why is this question in the Global Warming section? And what do you mean by "peer review process"? I ask that because it sure doesn't sound like you and Zippi62 are referring to anything that has to do with publishing in journals, which is what most people refer to as the "peer review process."
And to answer your question, it's more important to be right than to be approved by your peers. However, Tesla is not the best example--he was both mentally ill and hugely wrong about some things. For example, he didn't believe that electrons were connected with electricity!
Bose would be a better example, but I doubt you've heard of him.
Always interesting to watch denier make up information
Update 1: Gary F: If you knew anything about science you would know that peer review processes have been around in one form or another since Galileo at least.
Peer review in the form of passing the paper to external reviews is a feature only used from the mid 20th century, peer review was in limited use by medical science but even here passing the paper for external review is a relative new 20th century feature.
The oldest known paper review was in London 1665 more than 20 years after Galileo had died
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review...
As for the story about Kettering, sorry it's seems to be such a well known story that I could find no reference to it at all and you seem unable to provide any link either. Kettering only worked at NCR for 5 years before going on to bigger and better things, his electric cash register was a quick success and I see no reference to his peers (I presume you mean other cash register inventor's) laughing at him.
By Kettering's own account he spent most of his time with sales staff to get a feel what customers wanted, so in effect he had no real peers to worry about and given the company produced the electric cash register they certainly were not laughing at him. I certainly don't think there was a peer review journal devoted to the cash register in 1904-09 so what your actual point relating this to peer review is, as with most of your comments here, is lost in the fog.
As for Tesla, what papers he didn't write any scientific papers, he kept much of how work to himself in personal journals and all that really exists of his work now are the patents he filed, he certainly made great contributions the electrical engineering in electric motors , AC power and radio transmission.
But in the later part of his career he also made some bizarre claims in an effort to retain the the lead in the field he had lost to others. He lived much of his later life off the money from those early inventions till those patents ran out. Later claims of death rays and oscillating devices that could split the world in half are pure fantasy.
Kettering and Tesla where the inventors of their own original work, they could not submit their work to journals for the same reason the Wright brothers didn't submit their aircraft design to any aviation journals, there weren't any yet. As for Galileo and peer review, sorry what journal would that have been, Galileo published his own work and was promptly arrested and held under house arrest for the rest of his life for his effort, not by other scientists but by the church, a church that had already burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for similar work. Longer term real peer review of Galileo's work showed he was right which is why we all remember him and most people would have to look up the name of the Pope who condemned him.
and then this
"Just a hint. And one who has performed as a stand up comedian, I can tell you this, a joke isn't funny if you have to tell your audience it is funny."
Sorry but as far as I can see you are still working as a stand up comedian, you just aren't very funny.
<
And you back up that ridiculous claim with what exactly? A link to a conspiracy site? One of your famous un-sourced quotes perhaps?
<
You are confusing pure capitalistic propaganda campaigns such as the one carried out by Tesla's competitors Edison and Westhinghouse with unfavourable scientific opinions. This little campaign is known as the "War of Currents" and it has little to do with science, scientific views let alone scientific papers and the peer-review process but everything with investments and other heavy financial bets.
<
How many papers did Kettering write about the cash register? Again you are confusing mere claims with thoroughly described, researched and backed up hypothesis published in the scientific literature. Inventing a machine and acquiring a patent can by no means be described as a part of the peer-review process or the publishing of a peer-reviewed paper, none of which were used nor needed by Kettering to do his inventions, get them patented and eventually sold.
<<..he was a great scientist..>>
Kettering was first and foremost an inventor and a pretty good one at that.
Your core question is impossible to answer as long as you fundamentally misunderstand what a peer-review process actually is.
Edit @) Laughing Sage:
<
You're the one who brought up Kettering with regard to the 'peer review process', not me!
Ha Ha!
Wikipedia is your friend.
"Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication."
It even has a section on "bias and suppression" and "Improvement efforts"
However all this is irrelevant as it is still up to you to show where the thousands of published papers are wrong.
That depends. Peer review is important when you are applying for grants. If you work for the government or private industry, you can afford to be right. I don't think that you have to worry about being either.
Zippi - - that is the biggest load of horse manure that I have seen in a long time and that includes this forum. Who would you want scientists to be reviewed by? You? Sagebrush? Garbage collectors? Someone else who knows nothing about the field?
I think peer review is useful in some ways to root out the really off the wall theories yet science is often furthered by off the wall theories. If everyone just went around patting each other on the back for what they know and judged theories on how it conforms to present knowledge, nothing new would be learned. The greatest discoveries are all by definition, new and previously unknown.
People who know the difference between "sight" and "site," know that science does not consist of flunking it in school and then lying about it 60 years later with a gazillion lunatic Ha Ha Ha's.
What a surprise - another ignorant and dishonest opinion.
The peer review process as we know did not start until the mid-20th century.
=====
edit --
The first thing that could be consider peer-reviewed occurred after Galileo was dead.
Do not not understand "as we know it?' But, of course you don't because you don't know anything about science or the review process.
Your religion must have a Special Heaven for liars, huh?
Do you have to wear the Short-Wings. HaHaHa - now that's Goddamn funny.
====
zippy62 --
Since you use Elitist to mean anyone smarter than you, you must hate the whole world.
=====
edit ---
You're too stupid to be a stand-up comedian. That must have been a short career.
"Around the World in 80 Days" is fiction. We are all aware of your inability to tell fact from fiction.
AGW cultist elitists and researchers use their own peers to weed out the inconsistencies in their papers to assure it properly conforms to the AGW religious ideology This is what they call peer review. Their peers are cherry picked cultists who are far from objectivity. This has been proven true.. The message is just as important as the agenda behind AGW. Those who dissent from the AGW cult are not allowed to participate in the peer review process for academic AGW studies.
Tesla is a great example of one who hardly ever got a favorable ruling from the peer review process. And all this while everyone on this very sight is benefiting from his work.
