4 ms·
I think the best thing is to do more research to understand more rather than rejecting the scientific method entirely. It has and will continue to get better an
by kvee 4y ago
I think the best thing is to do more research to understand more rather than rejecting the scientific method entirely. It has and will continue to get better and better over time, with occasional regressions that may seem meaningful in the short term but are tiny blips when you zoom out. The history of science is one false theory being replaced by another that’s (usually) marginally closer to the truth.
- renonce 4y agoSo someone does a single dubious research, and we follow with 3 more dubious researches to justify the first research. For each of these 3 dubious researches we have to do 3 more to ensure their credibility. And the number of researches grows exponentially while the research quality doesn't improve at all.
- ren_engineer 4y agopeer review only really took off in the last few decades and it has been a disaster. Nothing about my post says anything about the scientific method, it's about sham fields that lack rigor and use cartels of influence to push each others pet theories to support their own ideologies.
- nativeit 4y agoWell this is somewhat ironic, but “citation needed” on that first statement.
- ren_engineer 4y agosimplest is a visualization of the term usage - https://scalar.usc.edu/works/the-art-of-academic-peer-reviewing/media/PeerReviewonGoogleBooksNGramViewer.jpg https://scalar.usc.edu/works/the-art-of-academic-peer-review... but looking at the criticism and history sections of the wikipedia page will cover it in more detail. It basically promotes gatekeeping and group think, as seen with the Alzheimer's research issue which wasted billions of dollars and slowed progress by decades via effectively an academic cartel. Funding becoming tied to publication which relies on peer review made things worse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review