That's bull shit. Peer review is exactly how scientific research is validated and protected from falsity- by ensuring that methodologies are consistent with accepted principles of research.
That's bull shit. Peer review is exactly how scientific research is validated and protected from falsity- by ensuring that methodologies are consistent with accepted principles of research.
Lancet editor-in-chief Richard Horton: “The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding…We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
I don't think many scientists would say that peer review is an absolute guarantee of accuracy. It is just what it is, and of course no human-created system, operating within other imperfect systems (including capitalism) is perfect. But what would you suggest as a better system? Or do you think that science is bettered and more likely to produce better information if everyone is simply left to their own opinions and definitions of "science"?
Peer review assumes unbiased opinions from highly qualified individuals who don’t have any vested interest. It was always rather idealistic; it has been severely compromised in the last decades when scientists have been under intense pressure to “publish faster than they think” to get funding, and since the woke zombie explosion it has become a joke, a tool to restrict scientific expression to whatever is acceptable to the establishment, from social sciences to climate studies to Covid directions.
While I have, as I said, no doubts that the products of science, especially when commercially relevant and funded by those with vested interests, are occasionally to frequently biased, it is to my mind a vast oversimplification to apply that critique uniformly to all research and researchers. In fact, such oversimplification is exactly the problem I observe among most of those contesting the majority scientific opinion about climate change. In fact, in even your short comment here there is an abundance of logical error. And your remark about 'woke zombie explosion' is irrelevant to this discussion- even if I agree that there has been one.
Ah, so there’s no less than “abundance” of “logical error” in my comment but you couldn’t be bothered to provide any example of that. You really want to prove my point about the condescendence and arrogance of the true believers. As to the recent “woke zombie explosion”, you just haven’t noticed anything since 2020, such as moral panic, clamor for conformity and government-imposed restrictions, the MSM forming a cartel that at the request of the government imposes news black-outs on whatever topic is inconvenient but turns out to be true, etc. Do you think that generates an atmosphere where honest, unbiased scientific research is encouraged and rewarded? Generally speaking, why are you wasting your time and talents on Substack, when the NYT or the WaPo comments section are a perfect match for you?
I assure you, I've been awake since about 1968 - when I first encountered the war machine, American exceptionalism and imperialism.
Yet I wouldn't call normal, best practice public health provisions, "moral panic"; and what you call a clamor for conformity was a demand that people not sneeze and cough on vulnerable others. The only "moral panic" I saw was from idiots who thought that mask mandates in crowded public places was somehow a denial of their rights, and a signal of "mass control". I suppose, though, that the claim that the pandemic itself was "faux" - just a ruse to demonstrate said control- could also be considered a case of moral panic. It was at least a hyperventilating hysteria.
You might care to read what public health professionals, and the available research, show about how to prevent outbreaks from becoming pandemics. That the U.S. was so negligent in the beginning in that regard was the primary reason why the U.S. experienced some of the highest mortality rates, and why a pandemic did occur. Just a hint: they do recommend isolation of cases, strong encouragement for extra diligence in personal hygeine, etc. Quarantining is SOP; though in the U.S. those were not enforced.
I would agree that the MSM is effectively a cartel, one that works closely with their Parties of choice, and with the Administration. (Glenn Greenwald has a spot on critique of this relationship, as illustrated during the WH Correspondent's Dinner.) And especially when it comes to foreign policy (projection of economic, political and military imperialism), there is a silencing of dissent. This has long been the case but it is greatly being amplified.
That said, it says little about the state of scientific research. To impugn all scientists as somehow compromised and dishonest is again, the worst kind of sweeping generalization.
Furthermore, does it not undermine your own arguments about the 'science' of those to whom you prefer to get your opinions?
Lastly, why are you wasting your time on Substack when you could be writing for Q-Anon, or better, some fantasy-hero anime?
Spoken like the “life-long (well, practically) dissident, activist for peace and environment , community organizer, group & campaign initiator/leader; seeker of justice” you claim to be.
That's bull shit. Peer review is exactly how scientific research is validated and protected from falsity- by ensuring that methodologies are consistent with accepted principles of research.
Lancet editor-in-chief Richard Horton: “The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding…We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
I don't think many scientists would say that peer review is an absolute guarantee of accuracy. It is just what it is, and of course no human-created system, operating within other imperfect systems (including capitalism) is perfect. But what would you suggest as a better system? Or do you think that science is bettered and more likely to produce better information if everyone is simply left to their own opinions and definitions of "science"?
Peer review assumes unbiased opinions from highly qualified individuals who don’t have any vested interest. It was always rather idealistic; it has been severely compromised in the last decades when scientists have been under intense pressure to “publish faster than they think” to get funding, and since the woke zombie explosion it has become a joke, a tool to restrict scientific expression to whatever is acceptable to the establishment, from social sciences to climate studies to Covid directions.
While I have, as I said, no doubts that the products of science, especially when commercially relevant and funded by those with vested interests, are occasionally to frequently biased, it is to my mind a vast oversimplification to apply that critique uniformly to all research and researchers. In fact, such oversimplification is exactly the problem I observe among most of those contesting the majority scientific opinion about climate change. In fact, in even your short comment here there is an abundance of logical error. And your remark about 'woke zombie explosion' is irrelevant to this discussion- even if I agree that there has been one.
Ah, so there’s no less than “abundance” of “logical error” in my comment but you couldn’t be bothered to provide any example of that. You really want to prove my point about the condescendence and arrogance of the true believers. As to the recent “woke zombie explosion”, you just haven’t noticed anything since 2020, such as moral panic, clamor for conformity and government-imposed restrictions, the MSM forming a cartel that at the request of the government imposes news black-outs on whatever topic is inconvenient but turns out to be true, etc. Do you think that generates an atmosphere where honest, unbiased scientific research is encouraged and rewarded? Generally speaking, why are you wasting your time and talents on Substack, when the NYT or the WaPo comments section are a perfect match for you?
I assure you, I've been awake since about 1968 - when I first encountered the war machine, American exceptionalism and imperialism.
Yet I wouldn't call normal, best practice public health provisions, "moral panic"; and what you call a clamor for conformity was a demand that people not sneeze and cough on vulnerable others. The only "moral panic" I saw was from idiots who thought that mask mandates in crowded public places was somehow a denial of their rights, and a signal of "mass control". I suppose, though, that the claim that the pandemic itself was "faux" - just a ruse to demonstrate said control- could also be considered a case of moral panic. It was at least a hyperventilating hysteria.
You might care to read what public health professionals, and the available research, show about how to prevent outbreaks from becoming pandemics. That the U.S. was so negligent in the beginning in that regard was the primary reason why the U.S. experienced some of the highest mortality rates, and why a pandemic did occur. Just a hint: they do recommend isolation of cases, strong encouragement for extra diligence in personal hygeine, etc. Quarantining is SOP; though in the U.S. those were not enforced.
I would agree that the MSM is effectively a cartel, one that works closely with their Parties of choice, and with the Administration. (Glenn Greenwald has a spot on critique of this relationship, as illustrated during the WH Correspondent's Dinner.) And especially when it comes to foreign policy (projection of economic, political and military imperialism), there is a silencing of dissent. This has long been the case but it is greatly being amplified.
That said, it says little about the state of scientific research. To impugn all scientists as somehow compromised and dishonest is again, the worst kind of sweeping generalization.
Furthermore, does it not undermine your own arguments about the 'science' of those to whom you prefer to get your opinions?
Lastly, why are you wasting your time on Substack when you could be writing for Q-Anon, or better, some fantasy-hero anime?
Spoken like the “life-long (well, practically) dissident, activist for peace and environment , community organizer, group & campaign initiator/leader; seeker of justice” you claim to be.
As if there is something wrong with such dissent and activism.