[hammerpamf]

AH - I agree with you that peer review is a good method for scholarly progress, but it has its problems. The main problem - politics. Years ago as a doctoral candidate, I published a number of articles in scholarly journals covering a diverse range of topics (e.g. dynamics of lung cancer, judgment and decision making of professional football coaches, statistical analysis/risk management of agricultural policies, criminal networks, etc) and in each and every field, I realized politics are ever-present; the more specialized the journal, the more political the editorial policies. Even though my publications were double-blind reviewed for the most part, the editors have a fairly good sense of who you work with based on your theoretical slant/methods.

Forums like this have a similar problem with peer review: who are the peers for anyone of us. I specialize in mathematical analysis - this doesn't mean I'm smarter than those that don't understand differential equations, but it does mean we see the world through different metaphorical lenses; GPS pointed this out indirectly when he questioned who would police the data/findings.

That's why I am still going to ask anyone who is interested in theoretical debates, at a deeper level, to join the Theoretical Hydroponics Group (i.e. social group). I noticed five yes votes thus far to the poll question, but we still only have two members. Once we get a few more members, I would like to start discussing theoretical topics such as: what is the most appropriate type of irrigation system for large plants? Sure, the answer is it depends, but to push hydroponic science further along, we need to analyze and debate the conditions that narrow down the potential contingencies that answer questions like this.