I replied to the comment "Preprint not peer reviewed." which added nothing and arguably shuts down discussion. My whole point is that it's ok to find research

I replied to the comment "Preprint not peer reviewed." which added nothing and arguably shuts down discussion. My whole point is that it's ok to find research interesting and discuss it even though it's not peer reviewed yet. > If you were including the former, you were making a very rude argument by implying that anyone that values peer review is rendered invalid by that example No, I'm pointing out that not being peer reviewed is not automatically disqualifying and that the real way that or prove/disprove science is by replication attempts, not through peer review. > And there's even more almost infinitely many examples that say peer review is a strong signal. So you say, but if you think about it all papers in the ongoing replication crisis are peer reviewed. I know several peer reviewed papers which have inaccurate results, and in my experience having been on both sides of the peer review process I can tell you that it's pretty flawed since very few scientists are willing to invest a lot of their own time to do meticulous unpaid review of other people's work. Meanwhile, science progressed fine before peer review became standard in the 1970's. > Telling people to shut up about peer review is bad for discussion. I'll keep that in mind for the future but doesn't apply to anything I said. Maybe you should take a few minutes to read what I actually wrote instead of reacting emotionally