The current UM rule book seems to go like this:
1) Advocate “open-mindedness”, but censor comments like crazy.
2) Tell scientists who dispute your work that they can peer-review it for free if they sign up, and then refuse to let them see your work once they start pointing out where you’ve erred.
Overly worried, UMers?
Most real scientists are use to letting others critique the merits of their work. Often they’re humble enough to be grateful when they are corrected.
“When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease being mistaken, or cease being honest.”
– Anonymous
