4 ms·
> If that's the case, that just means we have to pick the second option: stop treating peer reviewed research as if it is reliable. It is the case, and that se
by kergonath 3y ago
> If that's the case, that just means we have to pick the second option: stop treating peer reviewed research as if it is reliable.
It is the case, and that second option is exactly what we do. One article is nice, but replication is key before some new finding is accepted. That is exactly what happened with LK-99, for example, which is interesting because it was very public.
- pdonis 3y ago> that second option is exactly what we do I don't think so. I see claims made all the time about science being "settled" purely on the basis of it being peer reviewed. > replication is key before some new finding is accepted If only that were true. In many cases it isn't.