How modern-day “peer review” and “scientific consensus” works
(media.communities.win)
Comments (21)
sorted by:
This is so spot on I can't think of anything to add really. Hard to parody this absurd reality.
The first guy needs to be replaced with a woman.
That's what it identifies as. Bigot!!
or fauc i
Well, at least the science is settled then. I mean, all availiable research validates the trend.
Until the "the science has evolved".
This reminds me of the failures within big business/government.
I was on a committee to select a new tech product for an organisation I used to work for. I was the expert and everyone else was from the business units, or "stakeholders" as they were referred to.
All the stakeholders chose a solution that wouldn't work. I tried to warn them that the solution wouldn't work, that the vendor was lying to us, that it would be a massive mistake to choose this flawed solution.
I was overridden and "we" went for the flawed solution.
Low and behold, 6 months later it was clear that the chosen solution was flawed, couldn't meet the minimum requirements, and was entirely unfit for our required purpose.
I'd already left the organisation by then but I knew people who were still there.
Excuses all over the place! How could we have known? No one knew that this would fail. If only we had a product expert to tell us that this wouldn't work. You can't hold us responsible for our flawed decision. Don't blame us.
Fuck those assholes. I'll never work for a large organisation ever again. Incompetence and corruption are rife and they refuse to take any responsibility for their bad decisions.
In other words, Dilbert is an accurate portray of how things work.
I've only worked for large corporations. I came to the conclusion that they are the same as any corrupt government institution
This is the nature of bureaucracy: compartmentalize to avoid accountability.
From my point of view dealing with this same garbage.
You have the expert, and then the people that need the use the tool. They offer input, but not the final sign off because they're usually idiots outside their narrow areas of expertise (and even there, they still might be dumb).
I've run into the same sort of issue before.
All the business buzzwords/etc are used to pawn off responsibility and accountability for anything.
Don't forget the retraction of the research that discredits the Progressive """scientific consensus""".
The alternative comic panel is:.
Mainstream media makes shit up.
Common Consensus agrees with made up shit.
Actual scientists and skeptics point out it's inaccuracies and falsehoods.
Shill Scientists create research that meets the made up shit.
“Follow the Money” in three panels.
Mainstream reporting and the opinion of any scientific community are very different things. You're being gas lit.
It's wrong to assume scientists live in their own academic bubble, far above peer pressure, social conditioning, politics, and other mainstream influence groups. Twitter limiting free exchange of ideas on COVID-19 hurt the scientific process by manufacturing consensus for everyone.
It's wrong to assume twitter is the real opinion of any group threatened with being black listed from their industry if they publicly state something twitter disagrees with.
excellent post, being a 'scientist' doesnt necessarily free one from bias, or political agenda pushing. And that came out in spades throughout the pandemic.
consensus is not science, it's dogma.