Peer Review: A Fallacious Argument in Itself

[I Envy JTEM]

Now if we want to speak literally here, Peer Review
is a fallacious argument -- argument of (to/from)
authority. It's a little different and hence difficult for
the, um, for the "unsubtle" mind in that instead of
saying "My priest no I mean authority said, so you're
wrong." In the case of Peer Review it's "My priest no
I meant authority did NOT say, so you are wrong."

Peer Review was never good. It always favored
big names, popular ideas and $money$. I always
knew it was problematic, as did we all -- there have
been countless incidences where junk had passed
muster -- but I never realized just how bad peer
review was until I took the time to read the so-called
"Peer Review" that stopped some letters on the
Oral Vaccine Theory on the origins of AIDS in Africa.

...they were so bad, digging for excuses to
reject the work.

SCIENCE IS OVER!

Peer Review was always bad, always hugely problematic
but now it's automated.

They removed the peers!

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07245-9

Yes, kiddies, "Peer Review" no longer has peers!

Censorship is now PERFECT! It no longer relies on the
complacency of human censors!

So "Peer Review" was always a highly flawed process,
creating a (normally invisible) "Authority" pronounce
truth, but now there aren't even people.

It's time to admit that science is gone. There is no science.
If it's published it met the approval of some nameless
faceless self-imposed "Elite."






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/662426928409640960

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op donderdag 16 september 2021 om 20:39:04 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> Now if we want to speak literally here, Peer Review
> is a fallacious argument -- argument of (to/from)
> authority.

Yes, then you can get idiocies like human ancestors running after antelopes, and rejecting waterside hypotheses for publication in PA journals.
Google
"New directions in palaeoanthropology"