I’ve heard it said that what’s truer is revealed by what works better. If FF can continue its superior progress (even as far back as the Oct. ’07 Google Tech Talk it had moved far closer to breakeven than any alternatives, and is now far in advance of that) then we will see “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” demonstrated.

Peer review is nice — depending on who picks the peers! In practice it means an editor selects some people in the field, keeps their names confidential, and passes their comments on to the authors being reviewed, and decides to print/not print based on their opinions. But a recent study of peer review quality has found that it rises briefly, and then declines so that after about 5 yrs. a reviewer is somehow “burnt out”, and no longer can provide quality objective assessments. Counseling, coaching, and setting standards have no influence on this; it seems to be inevitable. Reviewers are unpaid, so the task is stressful and personally unrewarding after a while, so maybe that’s the reason.

In any case, it’s secondary to results. If a FoFu once generates net energy, theorists, reviewers, and “competitors” will have to accommodate the fact as best they can.