A problem with this line of (ad homnium) argument is that the peer-review system is a closed system. The only way to become a "peer" is to swear to a particular intellectual orthodoxy and become an advocate for a special set of dogma. If you refuse, you won't be peer-reviewed, and you won't be published, either.
Other than that, your reasoning is stellar.
A problem with this line of (ad homnium) argument is that the peer-review system is a closed system. The only way to become a "peer" is to swear to a particular intellectual orthodoxy and become an advocate for a special set of dogma. If you refuse, you won't be peer-reviewed, and you won't be published, either.
First of all, it appears you do not know what an ad hominem (sp!) argument is.
Second of all, I publish routinely in peer reviewed journals. I've posted some fairly controversial stuff. Nowhere was I asked to swear to any orthodoxy, nor advocate any dogma. I have been asked to provide documentation for my observations, and to consider other alternatives when discussing my data. The authors under discussion did not do the latter.