From a Social Galactic post I saw this link. An interview with a science-type guy out in the field. He says it quite eloquently (paraphrased): Science is about observing, thinking, discussing, not just what’s in peer reviewed papers. By definition, published peer reviewed papers means they all thought the same and agreed. New knowledge almost always comes from outside academia. “The best candle-maker couldn’t dream of electric lights.”
Yes, indeed. It gets old trying to argue with people who don’t know, can’t think, but can easily point to a “peer reviewed article” that I can easily point out flaws with, but because I’m just some guy with a brain, not an “expert,” I don’t count.