Reply #56: You're right. You're not a scientist.

[autorank]

Normal science doesn't experience a conflict until a new paradigm emerges. It emerges when the normal
science of the day can't answer some important question, when anomalies appear. The scientist and new
paradigm that can explain the anomalies is incorporated as the new paradigm and a cycle of normal
science begins again based on that until, yet another set of anomalies emerge and the 'scientific
revolution' occurs again. Newtonian physics wasn't thrown in the trash when Einstein developed his
theories. Einstein was placed atop Newtonian physics to further complete the theory and allow for
new normal science. In some ways, a field that does NOT include the option for older theories is
likely to be a hard science while one that does may have scientific elements but is not really a hard
science. Psychology, for example, seeks to be a science but it's acceptable to be a Freudian or
Adlerian, etc. In physics, you can't be a Newtonian because you'd reject the current paradigm.

You're begging the question with your talk about "peer review." Look at this list and their
affiliations. I'll bet everyone of them knows about "peer review" - no doubt. And that's what they'll
have to go through to get their theories accepted. The article isn't about 'peer review' it's about
the formation of a new consensus, perhaps. To use scatological pejoratives about the article because
it fails to mention something entirely irrelevant to the point and assumed by the informed reader,
(i.e., that all these academics at places like Oxford, Harvard, etc. would have to go through
peer review), is what I mean by begging the question.