https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3eMWLG7Rro

"People talk GLIBLY about science. What is science? People are coming out of the university with a masters degree or a PhD and you take them into the field and they literally don't believe anything unless it is a peer-reviewed paper! That's the only thing they accept. If we say them, "Let's observe, Let's think, Let's discuss." They don't do it. It's just, "Is it in a peer-reviewed paper, or not?" That's their view of science! I think it's pathetic!

Going to universities as bright young people - they come out of them BRAIN DEAD, not even knowing what science means. They think it means peer-reviewed papers etc. NO! That's "Academia"! And if a paper is peer-reviewed, it means everybody thought the SAME, therefore they approved it. An unintended consequence is that when NEW knowledge emerges, NEW scientific insights... they can never ever be peer-reviewed.

So, we're blocking all new advances in Science, that are big advances. If you look at the breakthroughs in Science, almost always they don't come from the center of that profession - they come from the fringe. The finest candle makers in the world couldn't even think of electric lights. They don't come from within, they often come from the outside the breaks.

We're going to kill ourselves because of stupidity."

~ Professor Allan Savory.

In the world of science, no one wants to believe the scientific outcome without peer review. This thinking affects the creative thinking capabilities of the human brain. Here we share a short clip from Return to Eden to clear one of the major disadvantages of peer review in the scientific community.
Note: For students (Educational Purpose).