Kim O'Hara wrote:
By the way, I'm not saying that peer reviewed journals have no value.
What I'm saying is that here we can see that they're not as independent as is thought by a large percentage of their advocates.
That's a much more reasonable position - thanks.
Peer review is a bit like democracy: not terrifically good but a lot better than the next best alternative.
A flawed process carries out by fallible human beings that has resulted in significant understanding of, and sometimes cure of, a whole range of conditions which were incurable just 20 short years ago.
There are literally millions world-wide with cause to be grateful for all of the advances in the sphere of medicine, surgery, and applied psychology.
The idea of reverting to the use of responses based on medieval superstitions in the face of Hodgkins Disease, testicular cancer, smallpox, A.I.D.S, kidney failure, phobias, obsessional states, polio, malaria, yellow fever, leprosy, etc etc etc does not bear thinking about.
There is nothing 'Buddhist' in advocating a wilful turning away from significant reductions in the suffering brought about by a whole range of conditions in order to maintain an anachronistic and neophobic ideology.