3 ms·
Given how cleverly the authors tried to evade peer review, the evidence might have been quite flimsy to begin with. Peer review is the primary mechanism by whi
by kijin 11y ago
Given how cleverly the authors tried to evade peer review, the evidence might have been quite flimsy to begin with.
Peer review is the primary mechanism by which modern science verifies evidence, especially in fields like climate change where it's often very difficult to replicate another scientist's data.
Evasion of peer review is like including an obfuscated blob in a critical part of some security software. It is highly suspicious by definition, and the community has every right to assume that it is malicious unless the author can demonstrate otherwise.
- n0us 11y agoThats why you don't use that blob. I'm not saying that I trust the study, only that I don't see anything wrong with the author accepting money in exchange for writing it. Continuing the analogy, I don't see anything wrong with using or producing an obfuscated blob (in certain situations) but it wouldn't necessarily be wise to blindly trust it.
- carc 11y agoI don't either... assuming the author discloses the sources of funding. How can you rationalize away that part?
- shkkmo 11y agoOverextending that analogy: But the issue is the author effectively saying "this project's source code undergoes independent security audits prior to each release" and then being paid to include an un-audited blob. In both cases person is being paid to deceitfully and deliberately abuse the trust placed in him.