2 ms·
Man there are some nasty replies in this thread. Not that I don’t agree with the high level premise, but I hate when people dismiss a hundred years of peer rev
by aplummer 8y ago
Man there are some nasty replies in this thread.
Not that I don’t agree with the high level premise, but I hate when people dismiss a hundred years of peer reviewed research generally without doing the peer reviewed legwork to back themselves up.
- yawaworhtttt 8y agoExamples of fields with hundreds of years of 'peer-reviewed research': -Alchemy -Phrenology -Humor theory -Spontaneous generation theory -Astronomical geocentrism -Ether theory -Graphology -Freudian/Lacanian psychoanalysis -Astrology all of them were once respected fields, complete with papers, journals, professorships, exams, etc. By the way, speaking as someone in academia, you'd be surprised at how little 'peer-reviewed' means in terms of scientific validity. There's plenty of crap in Nature and Science and everyone knows about it.
- saywhatnowman 8y agoDon't forget '-Gender Studies'.
- iguy 8y agoI agree that "peer-reviewed" is a pretty low bar, although a better example would be more modern fields like those recently dubbed "Grievance Studies" -- formal peer review was not common even in hard sciences until maybe 50 years ago, quite a bit later than geocentrism. But GP is correct that this is not junk science. The basic ideas of psychometrics were pretty clear 100 years ago. They've been widely attacked since then, both casual mud-slinging (Alchemy, Astrology...) and also people who drilled into the details and tried to prove things wrong. Arguably the former strategy has had more effect than the latter.