• Peer Review: A Fallacious Argument in Itself

    From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 16 11:39:03 2021
    Now if we want to speak literally here, Peer Review
    is a fallacious argument -- argument of (to/from)
    authority. It's a little different and hence difficult for
    the, um, for the "unsubtle" mind in that instead of
    saying "My priest no I mean authority said, so you're
    wrong." In the case of Peer Review it's "My priest no
    I meant authority did NOT say, so you are wrong."

    Peer Review was never good. It always favored
    big names, popular ideas and $money$. I always
    knew it was problematic, as did we all -- there have
    been countless incidences where junk had passed
    muster -- but I never realized just how bad peer
    review was until I took the time to read the so-called
    "Peer Review" that stopped some letters on the
    Oral Vaccine Theory on the origins of AIDS in Africa.

    ...they were so bad, digging for excuses to
    reject the work.

    SCIENCE IS OVER!

    Peer Review was always bad, always hugely problematic
    but now it's automated.

    They removed the peers!

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07245-9

    Yes, kiddies, "Peer Review" no longer has peers!

    Censorship is now PERFECT! It no longer relies on the
    complacency of human censors!

    So "Peer Review" was always a highly flawed process,
    creating a (normally invisible) "Authority" pronounce
    truth, but now there aren't even people.

    It's time to admit that science is gone. There is no science.
    If it's published it met the approval of some nameless
    faceless self-imposed "Elite."






    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662426928409640960

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 16 16:18:32 2021
    Op donderdag 16 september 2021 om 20:39:04 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

    Now if we want to speak literally here, Peer Review
    is a fallacious argument -- argument of (to/from)
    authority.

    Yes, then you can get idiocies like human ancestors running after antelopes, and rejecting waterside hypotheses for publication in PA journals.
    Google
    "New directions in palaeoanthropology"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)