3 ms·
> Don't gatekeep - just falsify. Amen. Gatekeeping is not science.
by jkhdigital 5y ago
> Don't gatekeep - just falsify.
Amen. Gatekeeping is not science.
- not2b 5y agoSo, everyone who claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine that produces free energy just gets published, because to do otherwise is "gatekeeping" and "not science"? No, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and simply submitting such claims without evidence and then whining about being censored isn't science.
- exporectomy 5y agoI don't know if you really need extraordinarily strong evidence for perpetual motion. Just plausible evidence for every aspect of physics which must be changed because of it. If you forget to consider existing experimental evidence for, say, conservation of momentum and just quietly assume it doesn't hold or fail to notice the impact on it, that wouldn't be rigorous. But if you show that all such experiments were done with error greater than what's needed for your perpetual motion, it should be fine.
- jkhdigital 5y agoPeer-reviewed publication != science
- wittycardio 5y agoA certain amount of gatekeeping is necessary for good science in the modern world. This isn't the 15th century where anyone can verify the results of scientific experiments. Scientific research is often expensive and complex and isn't accessible to the average person.
- bee_rider 5y agoGatekeeping is essentially the only service provided by journals. We could argue about whether it is actually a useful service, but anti-gatekeeping journal seems like a contradiction.