[AndyJackson]

if you don't beleive the dogma argument, look at the masters and johnson sudies. Blatent fabrication of observations and the fraud which was adopted as fact is still held up as acceptable by the peers.

there are a number of pseudo-scientific fields where their is no substantial and effective peer-review community and where you can publish almost anything and have it stand for years. Much of the social sciences fell into this category - though as time goes on the rigor has improved.

One of the difficutlies in fields dealing with human or animal behavior is that the complexity of the problem is so vast and the scatter in the data is so large that reaching reliable conclusions is very difficult. Therefore the standard often does become one of political acceptance.

Physics, chemistry, molecular biology, etc. are not such fields.

[Erasmus]

there are a number of pseudo-scientific fields where their is no substantial and effective peer-review community and where you can publish almost anything and have it stand for years. Much of the social sciences fell into this category

Sodnagel's Law of Discipline Names:

"If it says 'Science' in the title, it isn't."