In recent debates about climate, pollution, trade deficits, and the like, we - and by this I mean you and me, kemosabi - sometimes get hit with challenges like this: “Well, that’s what this scientist recently said in a peer-reviewed journal article. No reputable scientists agree with you,” blah blah blah.

As arguments from authority go, it can be devastating.

But, as economist Robert Higgs recently argued for the Independent Institute, peer reviewed journals don’t make perfect science by magic.

Higgs himself has a long career of being one of those peer reviewers, for more than 30 journals. And he insists that “Peer review . . . varies from being an important control, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to being a complete farce, where they are not.”

His essay on the process is an eye-opener. He describes how an editor can get any article nixed, no problem. And favor a different article, too, almost regardless of merit.

And he notes that in many fields, research is done with government grants, and this process by no means ensures incorruptible research.

His advice? Don’t give up your own expertise. And what is that? Your own judgment and values and risk preference. At the very most, a scientist is only qualifed to talk about his science. Not policy.

So never give ground merely under pressure of cited peer review article. As peer pressure goes, it’s far from infallible.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.