[exDemMom]

Of course there is. Philosophical naturalism is the religion of scientism. The gatekeepers are the peer-reviewed publications that are committed to scientism.

For science being a supposed religion, with supposed gatekeepers, there sure were a lot of hits when I Googled "science news" just now. Over 4 billion--I have never seen a search show up that many hits before.

Peer-review is a quality-control measure. By having people review an article for scientific plausibility and accuracy, we can filter out the junk science that, if published, would quickly make science lose all credibility. FYI, the databases where scientific publications are catalogued are public-access, and many of the journals give free access to their articles. Other journals charge a fee for accessing full articles, but they don't refuse anyone access if they are willing to pay $35 or so. That whole scenario of "gatekeepers" of science just doesn't mesh with reality.

[GourmetDan]

"For science being a supposed religion, with supposed gatekeepers, there sure were a lot of hits when I Googled "science news" just now. Over 4 billion--I have never seen a search show up that many hits before."

Surely a competent scientist would recognize a non sequitur before posting?

"Peer-review is a quality-control measure. By having people review an article for scientific plausibility and accuracy, we can filter out the junk science that, if published, would quickly make science lose all credibility."

The only place 'credibility' has in science is as a tool to convince non-scientists that what they are being told should be believed. An emotional appeal to 'credibility' is the antithesis of science. Surely a competent scientist would recognize that.

"That whole scenario of "gatekeepers" of science just doesn't mesh with reality."

Sure it does. You just proved it.

[Quix]

Peer-review is a quality-control measure

You seem to really believe that.

You're a scientist and you're UNAWARE of how grossly--often almost unreadably--poorly written most scientific journal articles are?

You're a scientist and you're UNAWARE of how grossly shallow and insignificant most scientific articles are?

You're a scientist and you're UNAWARE of how grossly petty the vetting of most journal articles can be?

Yet you still hold to the farcical religious dogma that peer review is about quality instead of about PRIMARILY vetting whether the author is holding to the nihilistic Religion of Scientism??? One can publish all manner of garbage in peer review articles as long as one scratches where the Bishops of the irrational Religion of Scientism itch.

I haven't read the whole thread. What science are you a professional in?