I really enjoyed this episode of the ID the Future podcast.
Is the only good science peer-reviewed science? Are there other avenues to present important scientific work? On this episode of ID The Future, Professor of Mathematics Dr. Frank Tipler discusses the pros and cons of peer review and refereed journals. More than fifty peer-reviewed papers discussing intelligent design have been published, but critics of the theory still proclaim a lack of peer-reviewed work as an argument. Listen in as Tipler shows how things have changed with the peer review process and what we can do about it.
About the speaker:
Frank Tipler was born and raised in Andalusia, Alabama. His first science project was a letter written in kindergarten to Werner von Braun, whose plans to launch the first earth satellite were then being publicized. Von Braun’s secretary replied, regretting he had no rocket fuel for Tipler as requested. By age five, he knew he wanted to be an astrophysicist. But he’s always been a polymath, reading widely across disciplines and into the history of science and theology. After graduating from MIT and the University of Maryland, he did postdoctoral work at Oxford and Berkeley, before arriving at Tulane in 1981.
William Lane Craig often cites a book by two physicists named “Barrow and Tipler” called “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle” (Oxford University Press, 1988) in his debates to support the fine-tuning argument. This Tipler is that Tipler! Dr. Tipler is a master of the physics of cosmology and fine-tuning. However, I definitely disagree with him on some of his ideas.
The MP3 file is here. (17 minutes)
- the changing nature of refereed journals and peer-review
- previously, the refereed journals were more about communication
- now, ideas are not taken seriously unless they are published in these journals
- the problem is that referees can be motivated by ideological concerns
- before, an obscure patent official named Einstein submitted a physics paper and it was published
- now, an uncredited person would not be able to have a brilliant paper published like that
- today, there are so many scientists that many more papers are submitted
- although it restricts BAD ideas, it can also end up censoring NEW ideas
- the problem is that any really brilliant idea has to go against the prevailing consensus
- peer-review may actually be holding back the progress of science by censoring NEW ideas
- some referees are motivated to censor ideas that undercut their reputation and prestige
- Dr. Tipler was told to remove references to intelligent design before one of his papers would be published
- how scientists with NEW ideas can bypass the system of refereed journals when they are censored
- peer-review has value when it finds errors, but not when it suppresses new ideas
I think this one is a must listen. I like to refer to peer-reviewed evidence when arguing, but it’s not perfect, for sure.