4 ms·

> If you can’t get peer review, why should I waste my time Where would the author get published and receive peer review? The gate keeping, bias, and influenc

> If you can’t get peer review, why should I waste my time Where would the author get published and receive peer review? The gate keeping, bias, and influence peddling in today's journals make what you're saying nearly impossible.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
helen___keller 4y ago
Let me be more clear: I don’t understand the goal of the OP because if you have the training and patience to read this article you probably would rather see it in a peer reviewed article; and if you don’t, then the article is meaningless other than the political rant at the end. I don’t know who the intended audience is, but it’s definitely not me.
- jack_pp 4y ago
  The goal is to justify the political rant. I'm not going to fast check the meat of the article either but if I really had a dog in the fight then I could learn and check. It also allows other people with the appropriate expertise to check and offer a rebuttal if they find flaws
- bryan0 4y ago
  I personally love this type of blog post, and I think it’s good for articles on complicated topics to show their analysis. Have you read Scott Alexander? He does a similar style but with more humor to keep it entertaining.
- artificialLimbs 4y ago
  This kind of blog posting seems like a much more integrous approach to disseminating information to me. Any person can add further information/opinions and back up their claims with links to sources or further reading. This is in direct opposition to most peer reviewed articles I see that don't allow any commentary, which seem to pretend that the documents are some sort of uncontestable hard truth.
  - helen___keller 4y ago
    In some contexts I agree, like when field experts publish blogs or tweets. For example, Scott Aaronson does this often ( https://scottaaronson.blog/ https://scottaaronson.blog/ ) The problem is that this generally requires already having the credibility / “clout”. Without that, you’re just some anonymous person screaming into the void that the mainstream is wrong. there isn’t a dialogue, just a rant. And without a name backing you up, the internet has little reason to care about the rant. I don’t see the numbers and analysis in this article contributing to any discussion but rather providing a facade of authenticity for the following political rant. And the problem is, if someone says it’s legit analysis, why should I believe them? Until an expert will put their name on the line, I just don’t care; and that brings us back to the peer review / “clout” problem
    - artificialLimbs 4y ago
      It may be 'screaming into the void' for you, but for people that want to read and comment, the opportunity is there, which is my point. One problem is, if an 'expert' says it's legit analysis, why should I believe them?
      - helen___keller 4y ago
        As a reader, if one or several experts came forward with this blog, I would skip the analysis and read the political rant, keeping in mind they may have the benefit of the doubt on the analysis. Not ‘believe’ per se, but enough to consider it worth my time to read the political stuff predicated on the analysis. When an anonymous author comes forward with this, I could do the same, but why would I? Political rants are a dime a dozen on the internet, so it doesn’t justify itself, and I can’t personally vouch for the author because I’m not an expert in the field. If you have the expertise to validate the author’s meta meta analysis and actually want to do so, then I applaud your benevolence and envy your free time. When I was in my 20s I did this with P vs NP cranks on Reddit. I spent hours reading random people’s algorithms and pointing out flaws. In retrospect I don’t particularly feel like it was a good use of my time.
      - 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

helen___keller 4y ago

Let me be more clear: I don’t understand the goal of the OP because if you have the training and patience to read this article you probably would rather see it in a peer reviewed article; and if you don’t, then the article is meaningless other than the political rant at the end. I don’t know who the intended audience is, but it’s definitely not me.

jack_pp 4y ago
The goal is to justify the political rant. I'm not going to fast check the meat of the article either but if I really had a dog in the fight then I could learn and check. It also allows other people with the appropriate expertise to check and offer a rebuttal if they find flaws
bryan0 4y ago
I personally love this type of blog post, and I think it’s good for articles on complicated topics to show their analysis. Have you read Scott Alexander? He does a similar style but with more humor to keep it entertaining.
artificialLimbs 4y ago
This kind of blog posting seems like a much more integrous approach to disseminating information to me. Any person can add further information/opinions and back up their claims with links to sources or further reading. This is in direct opposition to most peer reviewed articles I see that don't allow any commentary, which seem to pretend that the documents are some sort of uncontestable hard truth.
- helen___keller 4y ago
  In some contexts I agree, like when field experts publish blogs or tweets. For example, Scott Aaronson does this often ( https://scottaaronson.blog/ https://scottaaronson.blog/ ) The problem is that this generally requires already having the credibility / “clout”. Without that, you’re just some anonymous person screaming into the void that the mainstream is wrong. there isn’t a dialogue, just a rant. And without a name backing you up, the internet has little reason to care about the rant. I don’t see the numbers and analysis in this article contributing to any discussion but rather providing a facade of authenticity for the following political rant. And the problem is, if someone says it’s legit analysis, why should I believe them? Until an expert will put their name on the line, I just don’t care; and that brings us back to the peer review / “clout” problem
  - artificialLimbs 4y ago
    It may be 'screaming into the void' for you, but for people that want to read and comment, the opportunity is there, which is my point. One problem is, if an 'expert' says it's legit analysis, why should I believe them?
    - helen___keller 4y ago
      As a reader, if one or several experts came forward with this blog, I would skip the analysis and read the political rant, keeping in mind they may have the benefit of the doubt on the analysis. Not ‘believe’ per se, but enough to consider it worth my time to read the political stuff predicated on the analysis. When an anonymous author comes forward with this, I could do the same, but why would I? Political rants are a dime a dozen on the internet, so it doesn’t justify itself, and I can’t personally vouch for the author because I’m not an expert in the field. If you have the expertise to validate the author’s meta meta analysis and actually want to do so, then I applaud your benevolence and envy your free time. When I was in my 20s I did this with P vs NP cranks on Reddit. I spent hours reading random people’s algorithms and pointing out flaws. In retrospect I don’t particularly feel like it was a good use of my time.
    - 4y ago