Activity Listen and fill in the gaps

part of this. The author’s work is subjected to analyses of their methodology,
reasoning and conclusions.
Peer review has been criticised as a way of preventing introduction of new 
ideas. (It’s also been said that science progresses one funeral at a time.) But the 
motive for this criticism is often sour grapes - an author wishing to blame the 
process rather than accept the errors in their own work.
Yes, personalities and ambitions do come into this. And new ideas may face 
obstacles. But editors are not obliged to accept a reviewer’s comments if they 
consider them unwarranted. There are always other avenues of publication. In the 
end it’s impossible to keep a good idea down. 
Beware of untested “science”.
Some people find this social testing of their theories so restricting they refuse to 
submit them to it. Their “science” thus becomes nothing more that unsupported 
assertion. Claims of belief are not scientific theories. Intelligent design (ID) ideas 
are like this. In practice ID just amounts to identifying real or imagined 
weaknesses in evolutionary science and attacking the scientific method. No ID 
hypotheses have been proposed, let alone tested against reality. In fact, ID activists 
argue that ID claims, in themselves, should be accepted as science. They argue for 
discarding testability as a requirement of scientific acceptability. This has been an 
element in their campaigns to rewrite science standards for some state education 
boards. It’s also behind campaigns like ‘teach the controversy’ and ‘academic 
freedom’ legislation. These give the same status to ID claims and beliefs as 
currently given to scientific theories which have survived testing.
Giving the untested claims of ID the same status as well accepted (because 
tested) scientific theory in the name of ‘academic freedom’ or ‘teaching the 
controversy’ really would, as Ken Miller says, create “an intellectual welfare for an
idea that can’t make it on its own.

---

“(Adapted from 
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/dogmatic-
falsification-of-science/
)