I have added a
new section to Moulton's talk page...
QUOTE(The Peerless Editors of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design)
The Peerless Editors of the WikiClique on Intelligent DesignThe
editors of the
WikiClique on Intelligent Design are without peer.
Which is a bit of a problem.
You see, one of the most important concepts in the protocols of the
Scientific Method is the practice of
Peer Review.
It's been a maddeningly difficult task to subject the articles of this WikiClique to outside peer review.
The putative agenda of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design is to fight off pseudo-science — an objective that I'm quite sympathetic to.
But it occurs to me that one cannot fight off pseudo-science with methods that do not themselves scrupulously honor the rigors of science.
And so, I was chagrined to observe the WikiClique on Intelligent Design depart from the protocols of the
Scientific Method in favor of
alternative methods of battle. To my mind, one must be scrupulously rigorous in examining the evidence for any hypothesis and reason carefully to scientifically defensible conclusions enroute to the
ground truth. And one of the most important aspects of the
Scientific Method is independent
Peer Review.
The honorable scientist welcomes peer review, which often discovers correctable errors or other deficiencies which can be addressed to produce a more reliable theory or model well-grounded in evidence and reasoning. Moreover a good peer review can also introduce valuable new points of view previously overlooked.
Is this not a good thing for an enterprise whose mission is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and effectively disseminate it around the world?
Moulton (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Peer review is a two way street. And you have been reviewed. And guess what the verdict was?--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)I believe the jury is still out on your curious and fascinating model of the character whose name is Moulton. Would this be a good opportunity to call for a peer review of Filll's proposed scientific model of Moulton's character? —Moulton (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)