4 ms·
Peer reviewed has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is just a layer of scientific bureaucracy. Just give me a calibration image of another celestial
by fasteddie31003 4y ago
Peer reviewed has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is just a layer of scientific bureaucracy. Just give me a calibration image of another celestial body and I'll be happy.
- zenmaster10665 4y agothis guy astronomies.
- malfist 4y agoYou realize peer review isn't just something you do and they automatically publish you, right? Peer review makes sure your science is sound. But I'm sure you're more of an expert than anybody serving in a peer review board.
- fasteddie31003 4y agoPeer review has let plenty of bad science through. Don't burn me at the stake because I speak heresy against the holy theologians of astronomy.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y agoBad papers do get through, but anything as high-profile as the first image of the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way will get intense scrutiny.
- malfist 4y agoAll you're saying is: They're wrong, not gonna say how, but trust me. Why should I trust you that you know more about astronomy than a team of astronomers and a peer review board? I've asked you this three times so far and you've not given an answer.
- oldgradstudent 4y agoYou might try publishing that comment as a dialog, but try not to ridicule the Pope's position too harshly, though. It didn't end up well for Galileo.
- JacobThreeThree 4y ago>Peer review makes sure your science is sound No it doesn't. Most peer review doesn't even attempt to reproduce results, which is the real way to make sure the science is sound.
- pfortuny 4y agoYou’re being downvoted for saying exactly what happens in the biological, economical and social sciences… Unbelievable.
- snowwrestler 4y agoPeers review the paper. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that the paper clearly communicates the work of the authors. In the process of doing so, questions and clarifications may better reveal problems with the underlying science itself, which can result in the paper being withdrawn or declined. But peers don’t independently validate results. At the same time it should be noted that published criticism has to meet the same bar. “You didn’t do the experiment the way I would have” is not really strong criticism. Experiments or observations can always be done better; this is a central ethos of science. The strongest criticism is usually to conduct one’s own experiment the way one wants, and then show that it produced better results.
- OrderlyTiamat 4y agoI'd just like to disentangle criticisms of the practice of peer review from whether this commenter is an expert or not. The former is valid or invalid irrespective of the latter.