"I'm re-reading what you said. But I didn't say science was never right either. While we're on the topic, who exactly are the peer reviewed experts in cosmology whose opinion you value so much more than my own? I'm curious."

Howabout the over-quoted Hawking- who once said that string theory held perhaps the greatest hope for a GUT of all the thoeries around in the early '90's.

As far as experts in cosmology I would listen to before you- sum up anyone who has published in a reputable, or even mid-ranked journal.

Your claims of profound knowledge in Science (example: Vorticies and such crap) are like you claims of having a gigantic IQ and actually knowing a lot of scientists: Dubious at best and completely contradicted by the substance of your posts here on the Zone. Perhaps the sad thing is that you think a lot of people believe you? I think you might have the respect of the Johannes and Sams in these things, but thats about it.

"In which corner of academia is this noble viewpoint being sustained? Who is still teaching this? [...]"

Its not something thats taught like some sort of class, its the way the world operates, little techie- and if you had seen that world with your own eyes instead of with your own arrogance, you would understand this: peer rview is the closest thing to an unbiased apolitical process as exists in this world, at least with respect to 'real world' politics of laft/right/green etc.

I doubt you have even actually pursued graduate study, much less published a paper or defended a thesis.

"It's certainly not valid in the real world. In the real world a scientist is valued on his contributions (usually in the form of patents, drugs, discoveries or somesuch) and what these contributions have brought to the organization who pays his salary."

And the touchstone of discovery is peer review. The touchstone of a successful drug is the peer review of the conducted studies.

"His income is directly proportionate to his "prestige" and his prestige is equated by his value $$$$ to the organization"

Nope. There is no such thing as a wealthy university researcher.

"sought. If a research scientist obtains a certain amount of notoriety he/she will probably be held onto longer by an organization/educational institution because their presence adds to the collective "prestige" of the institution."

Wow, you are such a fraud. You obviously know nothing of this. Researchers will kill their firstborn for the right seat at the right institution, Places like MIT, CMU, caltech and etc simply have to ask and the targeted researcher will come running at top speed. Pay has little to do with it as in most cases you are balancing a pitance vs a pitance and a penny.

"Their ability to fend off the attacks of other institutions and groups rests largely with the size of institution and their clout. Suppression of dissenting thought is part and parcel of protecting their "commodities".
"

No, it has to do with shooting the other guys down in the peer review process. Thats how MIT won the throne in Computer Science and how CMU stole the throne in Pure and Applied Logic from the 'big guys'.

"Well here I think I have discovered your misconception. "

Oh, I await in breathless anticipation for you to school my ignorance, oh mighty fraud-one!

You believe most hard science is created in academia - it's not.
Yes, It is.

Almost all breakthroughs are formed in the corporate sector by teams of research scientists in corporate labs. IBM, GM, Sony, Proctor & Gamble...the list is endless. The internet was a military project, the secret to headache and pain relief was a job for the chemistry slaves at Johnson & Johnson. The corporate sector is often at odds with the idealism and anti-capitalistic tendencies of the educational institutions. If one is talented one will discard the leftist cloak of righteousness and go to work for the corporate sector. "

Oh. my. god. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? The output of MIT, CMU, JH, CalTech etc... Any ONE of them DWARFS the output of even Microsoft, Xerox, Bel Labs etc. Why do you think these businesses PAY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to academia!? To have them DO RESEARCH FOR THEM, YOU NITWIT!

"And here is the kicker - the peer review process is only for those who need it. If you work for a large corporation - your peer review comes from the board of directors who will further develop your product, finance your research or patent your ideas"

Bullshit

Look, I could go on- but why bother? Its obvious to me and to anyone else who has particip[ated in research and academia that your a net crank who has a bunch of silly little pet ideas about how the world operates. I could spend, probably, years correcting them- but why bother.

Why don't you crack another beer and go back to your armchair and pontificate to people who DON'T know what they are talking about.