It's anti-Science™ but not necessarily anti-science, although in this case it probably is. Peer review is dumb and functions primarily as a screen for political orthodoxy. The overwhelming majority of peer reviewed published studies are wrong, as explained here by the bugman Veritasium.
All comes down to intentions and the slippery slide of inclusion over good faith gatekeeping.
Good faith gatekeeping is done by all of us. It is what we use to keep the immature and the incapable out of fields that they are ill suited for, where allowing them would be to the detriment of the field, themselves or both.
Good faith gatekeeping, eventually devolves into bad faith gatekeeping. This can be acerbated by wanton 'inclusivity', but even if not, bad apples more interested in their self interest rather than the 'field' will turn everything zero sum, and then like dominoes you find more of the gatekeepers turning into tinpots.
Once this is far gone enough, a new gatekeeper(s) is introduced to gatekeep the gatekeepers. Journals, administrative boards, UNO etc. Being removed from the actual field they move to bad faith even faster.
Then another gatekeeper for the gatekeeper of the gatekeepers. Courts, tribunals, politicians, etc.
Worst part is that the whole system is enmeshed such that gatekeepers at one level are beholden to the other in a completely different field. Courts may supervise admin boards, and an admin board can be in charge of court selection; UNO diktats to countries that in turn select the UN members etc.
So you have this spaghetti of interests, with the vast majority being actors acting in bad faith.
Subversion from within. As we've seen with white leftists, black niggers (latter having been defined by Chris Rock), and carpetbaggers from the colors between B&W.
To be fair, it's a step up from what I had assumed to be the operative position, namely that fact-checkers are permitted to use their own head-canon to debunk peer-reviewed research.
In a perfect world, it is supposed to be experts of your field making sure all your data and conclusions check out. As in devoid of unnoticed errors or unexplained jumps in logic. Which is a valid enough thing, because of how easy such things are to fuck up when you are too deep in your own shit.
But as we know, its not a perfect world and most of the time the critique is about the politics and networking instead of actual data.
That's literally anti-science btw
It's anti-Science™ but not necessarily anti-science, although in this case it probably is. Peer review is dumb and functions primarily as a screen for political orthodoxy. The overwhelming majority of peer reviewed published studies are wrong, as explained here by the bugman Veritasium.
"Peer review" in 2021 is often BS, but the actual concept of peer review is that other people check and confirm your work.
Thus a peer-reviewed scientific study is more FACT than one that isn't.
Absolutely agreed.
I wonder what else happened in mid-1960s. Hmmmm.
Noticing is antisemitic, goyim!!!
Galileo's heliocentric model would not have passed peer review.
All comes down to intentions and the slippery slide of inclusion over good faith gatekeeping.
Good faith gatekeeping is done by all of us. It is what we use to keep the immature and the incapable out of fields that they are ill suited for, where allowing them would be to the detriment of the field, themselves or both.
Good faith gatekeeping, eventually devolves into bad faith gatekeeping. This can be acerbated by wanton 'inclusivity', but even if not, bad apples more interested in their self interest rather than the 'field' will turn everything zero sum, and then like dominoes you find more of the gatekeepers turning into tinpots.
Once this is far gone enough, a new gatekeeper(s) is introduced to gatekeep the gatekeepers. Journals, administrative boards, UNO etc. Being removed from the actual field they move to bad faith even faster.
Then another gatekeeper for the gatekeeper of the gatekeepers. Courts, tribunals, politicians, etc.
Worst part is that the whole system is enmeshed such that gatekeepers at one level are beholden to the other in a completely different field. Courts may supervise admin boards, and an admin board can be in charge of court selection; UNO diktats to countries that in turn select the UN members etc.
So you have this spaghetti of interests, with the vast majority being actors acting in bad faith.
Subversion from within. As we've seen with white leftists, black niggers (latter having been defined by Chris Rock), and carpetbaggers from the colors between B&W.
For the right reasons though.
His model was actually more inaccurate than the geocentric model.
They've been anti science for a long time. Since real objective science says naughty facts about race and women.
Now we are to the point where you get punished for any public recognition of basic pattern recognition.
To be fair, it's a step up from what I had assumed to be the operative position, namely that fact-checkers are permitted to use their own head-canon to debunk peer-reviewed research.
It was never satisfactorily explained to me in uni how peer review wasn't merely argumentum ad populum.
Peer review is just like any other system: entirely dependent on the integrity and competency of the people who run it.
In a perfect world, it is supposed to be experts of your field making sure all your data and conclusions check out. As in devoid of unnoticed errors or unexplained jumps in logic. Which is a valid enough thing, because of how easy such things are to fuck up when you are too deep in your own shit.
But as we know, its not a perfect world and most of the time the critique is about the politics and networking instead of actual data.
deboonk!
Peer reviewed studies are themselves flawed because they dont actually have to replicate the original study to approve it.
There are replicability crises in multiple fields because we have bureaucrats instead of scientists.
Medical grade cocaine don't pay for itself.
Nah, the only good source is Twitter