Liberals, when you say to trust peer review, do you mean you believe any lie if enough people repeat it?
Topic: Peer review sources
July 23, 2019 / By Osgood Question:
So if enough people with enough degrees say you should jump into the ocean to save the planet, you'd do it?
Best Answers: Liberals, when you say to trust peer review, do you mean you believe any lie if enough people repeat it?
Leolin | 5 days ago
lol, they trust any government paper because they are to lazy to think.
If they knew a thing about history of Science it's that the bill payer dictates what they say is so. Galileo changed his Scientific opinion to keep his head, and they still do it to keep their jobs. That's why Science has been so wrong so often. It's often not science at all, and Anthropological Global Warming is a joke of a bunch of cherry picked factors that support in a really limited way without attention to scope or factors to the contrary that counter ... and a bunch of fraudulent assertions as the hockey stick graff, the polar bear tear jerking fraud the guy who came up with it was disciplined for, the ice positioning fraud, and the putting thermal instruments close to heat sources to change the readings fraud and many others.
👍 278 | 👎 5
Did you like the answer? Liberals, when you say to trust peer review, do you mean you believe any lie if enough people repeat it?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Peer review sources
Depending on the subject matter some peer review is not longer trustworthy, but good luck getting the liberals to ever acknowledge the fact. The best example would be Global Warming where anyone who disagreed with expected findings of supposed leading scientists were denied peer review and tenure while being labeled as oil company shills. Then we find out that some of those leading scientists were ignoring almost all evidence which contradicted their expected findings while publicly stating that no further debate was required because their findings were the actual facts. Most science is above board and honest, but some has been completely subverted by money and politics.
👍 120 | 👎 -4
Lol, that's now what peer review is.
Peer review is a process where experts in a field pick apart your data and methodology with a strong incentive to find errors in your work. Use the Sidak correction instead of the Bonferroni adjustment? You're screwed, redo it.
It's not a matter of trust. If a bunch of chemists can't find any errors in the work of another chemist, then I (with about 1/10th the knowledge and 1/1000th lab and data-collection experience) have little hope.
👍 116 | 👎 -13
Scientists are in competition with one another. They have a vested interest in discovering mistakes in the work of other scientists. The peer review process has exposed many errors and occasionally some outright fraud in past. Scientists aren't trying to save the world. They don't make any political commentary in their work. They are trying to create a useful body of knowledge for the ages. If they are wrong, it will be discovered soon enough by other scientists. This is why they are very careful about the claims they make. You know nothing about the process of peer review. If you did, you would acknowledge it's track record of excellence.
Ingrates like you are happy to use the medicines and technologies we discover, yet you whine like children when something we carefully investigate doesn't agree with your politics. You make the mistake of assuming we are a lot like you. We aren't. We deal in reality. We don't give a damn about politics.
"The best example would be Global Warming where anyone who disagreed with expected findings of supposed leading scientists were denied peer review..."
Richard Lindzen, climate change skeptic
Be sure to push publications link and scroll down the list. Note his many peer reviewed publications
👍 112 | 👎 -22