3 ms·
Peer review is not the gold standard in science
- cs702 3y agoThis is 100% right. The original purpose of scientific "journals" and "meetings," as those words themselves indicate, was to enable scientists to share new ideas and findings more efficiently with each other. There was no "peer review" as we know it today during the scientific revolution. The current system of "peer review" was introduced after Einstein's time. The purpose of this system is to manage, i.e., control, the exchange of information. The consequence is that we now have all these career-minded scientists who equate "success" with publication of papers in selective peer-reviewed venues.
- NotGMan 3y agoA huge problem that peer review causes is that it supresses any new ways of thinking about stuff (eg in medicine, diet and physics): whenever a new idea comes that contradicts old ones the old scientists will dismiss it as "false" since "we already know how it works". Basicaly scientist's ego's destroy new science by using their credientialism to put down novel directions of research. Science progresses one funeral at a time.
- TillE 3y agoIdeas are cheap, an idea is not interesting by itself. There's a very long history in science of ideas which sound good but are wrong. The question is always: do you have the data?