Well I guess The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life is meaningless words, then. Better chalk up Heisenberg and his Uncertainty Principle and the Friedmann and his cosmological model as meaningless words, because neither paper was published in a peer reviewed journal either.
Cordially,
Generally I would agree with you. Even though I think a good idea should be pursued in peer reviewed journals, even if it isn't accepted at first.
However, you are incorrect about Heisenberg. With his student and assistant, Hans Euler, he published his "Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik", in the journal, ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHYSIK 43: 172-198 in 1927.
Well I guess The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life is meaningless words, then.
Your supposition that Darwin's theory wasn't published, prior to his book, in the journal or proceedings of a learned society is inaccurate.
Joint papers (from Darwin and evolution-via-natural-selection independent co-discoverer Alfred Russell Wallace) were read before The Linnean Society of London in 1858, and published in their proceedings (Vol 3 1858. pp 45-62.).
You can read these papers on at least two websites (the second belonging to the Linnean itself):
http://www.life.umd.edu/emeritus/Reveal/PBIO/darwin/darwindex.html
The review process wasn't then what it is today. What happend back then is irrelevant. Today science needs to be peer reviewed and published in scientific journals, not political blogs.
Oh and I see your (now shown to be false) assertion about what wasn't peer reviewed (I never said I was a scientific historian) has been pretty well crushed.
You should have quit while you were ahead.
Hmmm, I guess I shouldn't say that since you have not been ahead in this discussion yet. I apologize.