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.
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.