In other words, rather than seeking the benefit of scrutiny and criticism from their peers, they instead try to avoid it. And as one would expect, ideas that are unhoned by the review process are not very sharp.
It's your point of view. Giordano Bruno's opinions didn't pass scrutiny of Oxford pundits once. I dont think his opinions were honed by discussion with arrogant Oxford doctors at that time.
From the modern era I would like to mention professor Zdenek Neubauer Charles University Prague, scientist and philosopher (1943) - he also wrote speeches for president Vaclav Havel. In the recent time he has stopped to publish in English and avoid any publicity. He publishes only in Czech and Italian. As a polyglote he helped to translate ancient "Corpus Hermeticum" into Czech from Greek.
Now scientific community hate him because he turned to be some kind of antiscientist and ridiculed science as well as darwinism. He somehow continues in tradition of German thinking of Goethe, Nietzsche and Adolf Portmann (Neubauer traslated his "Neue wege der Biologie" from German. You know Portmann was a close friend of psychiatrist C.G.Jung). Neubauer wrote many books, articles, University lecture notes.
Neubauer published once in the Nature too:
Neubauer: A brief consideration on the meaning of the lysogenic conversion. Nature (1967) 213:1263
Oppenheim, Neubauer, Calef, Antirepressor: A new element in genetical regulation. Nature (1970) 226:31
All his scientific and philosophical works are to be found here:
Neubauer bibliography
Neubauer called darwinists "sorcerers" who almost killed Nature like Snowwhite. He critised darwinism very strongly, he use words like "molecular genetic coup" etc (2001).
I would agree that such opinions do not pass any scientific scrutiny, but obviously professor Neubauer is not afraid of such a scrutiny - he doesn't care.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.