How modern-day “peer review” and “scientific consensus” works
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (21)
sorted by:
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.