There are many gems in the article including, right at the top:
The real gold standard of science is not “peer review”; it’s something called “reproducibility.”
When told that the “gold standard” of science is peer review, most people tend to accept this as gospel. If science has become so sophisticated that only experts in the field can understand it, then surely it makes sense to have any scientific conclusions evaluated by other experts in that field. Right?
Unfortunately, the idea that peer review is the gold standard of science is absolutely false.How often do the pushers of the man-made global warming hoax rely on peer-reviewed papers, and yet flawed papers can be published. Think of MBH98. Think of Cook et al 2013.
To the extent that peer review is based on authority or expert opinion, it is completely contrary to the true spirit of science. Peer review is not a bad practice, but its true purpose is to improve the work and decide if it is worthy of being published. You could say that peer review is the gold standard of publication—nothing more and nothing less.
Curt describes the scientific method, (see diagram above) and continues:
The real gold standard of science is something called reproducibility. Simply put, this means that if you do the same experiment under the same conditions and same measurement precision, you get the same results.
You could say the mantra of science is “see for yourself.”Curt thenapplies this principle to Dr Pierpont's WTS and finds that it passes the test.
Pierpont’s critics within the wind industry could easily fund an independent study to determine whether her experiments can be reproduced, but they never have and never will. Perhaps they already know too well that these attempts will only result in confirming her findings. Pierpont’s findings are simple enough. When people live near wind turbines, they experience nausea, dizziness, sleeplessness and stress-induced illnesses. When they get away from them, they begin to feel much better and may recover completely.Curt discusses peer-review and Einstein's Theory.
Amazingly, Einstein’s work was not peer-reviewed at all. It was read by Max Planck, the pre-eminent physicist of the day, who gave it a wink and a nod. Then it was published. Since then, Einstein’s theories have been experimented with, scrutinized, and tested as much as any in history. Science must accept or reject it based on evidence alone, not a “peer reviewer’s” authority or opinion.
Einstein’s ideas—most, at least—have been confirmed over and over again.
Based on the “gold standard” of peer review, however, we are presumably expected to discard the theory of relativity until it has been properly peer reviewed.
Read more of this excellent article HERE.