Why Peer Review Is Not Science
Peer review is just a racket for gatekeepers to scam exorbitant publication fees while pretending to offer a service. This powerful interview featuring Allen Savory (pictured) shows how students learn/experience science nowadays (actually the wrong way).
Savory says students are coming out of college with Master’s degrees or PhDs, yet when you take them into the field, they literally don’t believe anything unless it’s in a peer-reviewed paper. That is the only thing they accept.
And when you say something: let’s observe, let’s think, let’s discuss, they don’t do it!
They ask: “Is it in a peer-review or not?” That is their view of science and it’s pathetic. They go into universities as bright young people and come out of it brain-dead, not even knowing what science means.
They think it means peer-reviewed papers, etc…. No!, Savory exclaims. That is academia. And if a paper is peer-reviewed, it means everybody thought the same way before they approved it, he explains.
If you look back to the breakthroughs in science, they almost always come from the fringe, from people who see it differently. They rarely come from so-called ‘settled science.’
Mostly (and sadly), these out-of-the-box insights come from the outside because people learn to trust only what is documented in the official (peer-reviewed) papers.
We can behold this not only in science but also in politics, farming, environment, automation, healthcare, medical, schooling, energy, and so on. WATCH:
Read more at Climate of Sophistry
Trackback from your site.
Bill
| #
I’m sure it’s an interesting video. But seriously, I doubt any reader here is unaware of the scam that is “science” in the current incarnation. May as well explain how journalism isn’t authentic anymore =)
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Very true!
To me, peer review also lacks the presumed or desired outcome, which is meant to be an unbiased third-party review. Please see here and consider reading the comments as well. Thanks
(https://www.facebook.com/saeed.qureshi.5201/posts/pfbid035oMDqgA39FA7zxuBC9bEnVYE9Gmuzd2XHD7D1rdMEKXymsyLAJo43SX9psRSKU8pl?comment_id=754913532519312¬if_id=1657042331381714¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif)
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
In principle, peer review is not a bad idea. But it’s bastardized. What is considered a peer? Homogenous, institutional “credentials”?
I mean, let’s say I consider whoever as a peer, I don’t care about your “credentials”. That is, if I try to make a claim, then whoever is allowed to criticize. But then, I am also allowed to criticize whatever. The onus, in science, is always on those who try to make claims.
Such as in virology, where attempted claims can’t be substantiated.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
In THE MEANING OF IT ALL (1998) by Richard Feynman I read: “There is no authority who decides what is a good idea.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I forgot to mention that in the same lecture, given in 1963 and only published in 1998, Feynman also stated: “The third aspect of my subject is that of science as a method of finding things out. This method is based on the principle that observation is the judge of whether something is so or not. All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observations is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea. But “prove” used in this way really means “test”. … for people today the idea really should be translated as, “The exception tests the rule.” Or, put another way, “The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Hans
| #
98% of papers are never reviewed, which means that
even if a study is “peer reviewed” it does little to validate
the work or its findings. other than offering their opinions.
Reply